[forum] (no subject)
umberto
umberto_diaz@excite.com
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__8dec188ab06644e65bd06bb2b030ec23
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
ven, I have been forwarding industry-significant mssages from the Forum list to the xorg_foundation list because i knew that many xorg list recipients were not monitoring the Forum list. David Dawes is aware of this. I have also informed rms. Leon On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:> To: xorg_foundation@x.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-x@lists.debian.org> Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible license> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Leon Shiman wrote:>> > ------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------->> > From: David Dawes <dawes@XFree86.Org>>> > To: Richard Stallman <rms@gnu.org>>> > Cc: forum@XFree86.Org>> > Subject: Re: [forum] GPL-incompatible license>> [...]>> > Basically, XFree86 licensing policy has always been to allow licences>> > that satisfy both of these extremely important requirements:>> > >> > 1. Be an Open Source licence. >> > 2. Not require that source code be made available for binary-only>> > distributions of derivative works.>> > >> > The general preference has been for licences like the BSD and MIT>> > licences. By BSD, I mean the original BSD licence in common use when>> > XFree86 began. Historically, GPL compatibility has not been an issue>> > one way or the other regarding XFree86's licensing policy and so to make>> > it an issue now would represent a very real change in our licensing>> > policy.>> >> For the Debian Project, I recently did some investigation of the claim>> that the 4-clause BSD license, which I think is what David is referring>> to (since the Regents dropped the advertising clause in 1998, and I>> XFree86 was founded years prior), is preferentially used in the XFree86>> code base.>!
;> &
gt;> That license is indeed used, but an MIT-style copyright is used on more>> code in XFree86 copyrighted by the Regents than the 4-clause BSD license>> is, despite the latter being the representation of the Regents'>> copyright license in XFree86's LICENSE file.>> >> The messy truth is that there is code copyrighted by the Regents in>> XFree86 under *several* similar but distinct licenses. Some with an>> advertising clause, some without. Some GPL-compatible, some not.>> >> My findings follow. Please feel free to ignore the references to>> DFSG-freeness, which is a concern primarily for the Debian project, and>> my footnote discussion of unpacking a Debian source package.>> >> If this next part bores you, skip to the end for my conclusions.> > Branden,> > Again, you do great job in following the licence stuff, and> felicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soon> to be upcoming 4.3.0-1 package.> > I have an interogation about the aim of this mail though. You are> clearly following up on a mail from forum@xfree86.org, but in this> response you don't CC them. Is this willed from your part, as a way to> discuss this issue without XFree86 and then inform them about this ? Or> maybe it was only a mistake from your part and you forgot them in your> CC list ? Or maybe some other reason ? Could you please clarify your> position on this point, and eventually forward this list to the> forum@xfree86.org mailing list too ? > > Friendly,> > Sven Luther Hello, I am not a member of the xorg foundation list but I have found much there interesting. I have been readingfrom the website. I heartily agree with Sven and will gladly repay the favor and cross-post to help thisimportant discussion along. Best RegardsUmberto>
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__8dec188ab06644e65bd06bb2b030ec23
Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
<table cellpadding=3 cellspacing=0 border=0 width=100% bgcolor=white><tr valign=top><td width=100%><font size=2 color=black>ven,<BR> <BR>I have been forwarding industry-significant mssages from the Forum list to <BR>the xorg_foundation list because i knew that many xorg list recipients were <BR>not monitoring the Forum list.<BR> <BR>David Dawes is aware of this. I have also informed rms.<BR> <BR>Leon <BR> <BR> <BR> <BR>On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100 Sven Luther wrote:<BR>> To: <A href="mailto:xorg_foundation@x.org">xorg_foundation@x.org</A>, <A href="mailto:debian-legal@lists.debian.org">debian-legal@lists.debian.org</A>, <BR><A href="mailto:debian-x@lists.debian.org">debian-x@lists.debian.org</A><BR>> Subject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible license<BR>> <BR>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 05:00:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:<BR>>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:10:04PM -0500, Leon Shiman wrote:<BR>>> > ------------- Begin Forwarded Message -------------<BR>>> > From: David Dawes <<A href="mailto:dawes@XFree86.Org">dawes@XFree86.Org</A>><BR>>> > To: Richard Stallman <<A href="mailto:rms@gnu.org">rms@gnu.org</A>><BR>>> > Cc: <A href="mailto:forum@XFree86.Org">forum@XFree86.Org</A><BR>>> > Subject: Re: [forum] GPL-incompatible license<BR>>> [...]<BR>>> > Basically, XFree86 licensing policy has always been to allow licences<BR>>> > that satisfy both of these extremely important requirements:<BR>>> > <BR>>> > 1. Be an Open Source licence. <BR>>> > 2. Not require that source code be made available for binary-only<BR>>> > distributions of derivative works.<BR>>> > <BR>>> > The general preference has been for licences like the BSD and MIT<BR>>> > licences. By BSD, I mean the original BSD licence in common use when<BR>>> > XFree86 began. Historically, GPL compatibility has not been an issue<BR>>> > one w!
ay or th
e other regarding XFree86's licensing policy and so to <BR>make<BR>>> > it an issue now would represent a very real change in our licensing<BR>>> > policy.<BR>>> <BR>>> For the Debian Project, I recently did some investigation of the claim<BR>>> that the 4-clause BSD license, which I think is what David is referring<BR>>> to (since the Regents dropped the advertising clause in 1998, and I<BR>>> XFree86 was founded years prior), is preferentially used in the XFree86<BR>>> code base.<BR>>> <BR>>> That license is indeed used, but an MIT-style copyright is used on more<BR>>> code in XFree86 copyrighted by the Regents than the 4-clause BSD license<BR>>> is, despite the latter being the representation of the Regents'<BR>>> copyright license in XFree86's LICENSE file.<BR>>> <BR>>> The messy truth is that there is code copyrighted by the Regents in<BR>>> XFree86 under *several* similar but distinct licenses. Some with an<BR>>> advertising clause, some without. Some GPL-compatible, some not.<BR>>> <BR>>> My findings follow. Please feel free to ignore the references to<BR>>> DFSG-freeness, which is a concern primarily for the Debian project, and<BR>>> my footnote discussion of unpacking a Debian source package.<BR>>> <BR>>> If this next part bores you, skip to the end for my conclusions.<BR>> <BR>> Branden,<BR>> <BR>> Again, you do great job in following the licence stuff, and<BR>> felicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soon<BR>> to be upcoming 4.3.0-1 package.<BR>> <BR>> I have an interogation about the aim of this mail though. You are<BR>> clearly following up on a mail from <A href="mailto:forum@xfree86.org">forum@xfree86.org</A>, but in this<BR>> response you don't CC them. Is this willed from your part, as a way to<BR>> discuss this issue without XFree86 and then inform them about this ? Or<BR>>!
; maybe
it
was only a mistake from your part and you forgot them in your<BR>> CC list ? Or maybe some other reason ? Could you please clarify your<BR>> position on this point, and eventually forward this list to the<BR>> <A href="mailto:forum@xfree86.org">forum@xfree86.org</A> mailing list too ? <BR>> <BR>> Friendly,<BR>> <BR>> Sven Luther<br> <br>Hello,<br> <br>I am not a member of the xorg foundation list but I have found much there interesting. I have been reading<br>from the website. I heartily agree with Sven and will gladly repay the favor and cross-post to help this<br>important discussion along. <br> <br>Best Regards<br>Umberto<BR>> <BR> <BR><BR><BR><BR><br></font></td></tr></table><p><hr><font size=2 face=geneva><b>Join Excite! - <a href=http://www.excite.com target=_blank>http://www.excite.com</a></b><br>The most personalized portal on the Web!</font>
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__8dec188ab06644e65bd06bb2b030ec23--