[forum] (no subject)
umberto
umberto_diaz@excite.com
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__b5dce65f0f4bb94f64976cd778ba3a2c
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
------- Forwarded message -------From: Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>To: xorg_foundation@x.org, debian-legal@lists.debian.org, debian-x@lists.debian.orgSubject: Re: FWD from XFree86 forum: GPL-incompatible licenseDate: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100 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 claimthat the 4-clause BSD license, which I think is what David is referringto (since the Regents dropped the advertising clause in 1998, and IXFree86 was founded years prior), is preferentially used in the XFree86code base. That license is indeed used, but an MIT-style copyright is used on morecode in XFree86 copyrighted by the Regents than the 4-clause BSD licenseis, 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 inXFree86 under *several* similar but distinct licenses. Some with anadvertising clause, some without. Some GPL-compatible, some n!
ot. My f
indings follow. Please feel free to ignore the references toDFSG-freeness, which is a concern primarily for the Debian project, andmy 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, andfelicitations to you and to the rest of the X strike force for the soonto be upcoming 4.3.0-1 package. I have an interogation about the aim of this mail though. You areclearly following up on a mail from forum@xfree86.org, but in thisresponse you don't CC them. Is this willed from your part, as a way todiscuss this issue without XFree86 and then inform them about this ? Ormaybe it was only a mistake from your part and you forgot them in yourCC list ? Or maybe some other reason ? Could you please clarify yourposition on this point, and eventually forward this list to theforum@xfree86.org mailing list too ? Friendly, Sven Luther
_______________________________________________
Join Excite! - http://www.excite.com
The most personalized portal on the Web!
--EXCITEBOUNDARY_000__b5dce65f0f4bb94f64976cd778ba3a2c
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><BR>------- Forwarded message -------<BR>From: Sven Luther <<A href="mailto:sven.luther@wanadoo.fr">sven.luther@wanadoo.fr</A>><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>, <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>Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 14:42:57 +0100<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 way or the other regarding XFree86's licensing policy and so to 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> <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__b5dce65f0f4bb94f64976cd778ba3a2c--