You are not logged in.

#1 2004-02-01 18:41:56

cmf
Member
Registered: 2003-10-18
Posts: 86

Xfree86 4.4.0

will Arch actually be packaging/providing Xfree86 4.4.0 in an official capicity given the latest licence changes to it, as i understand Debian and RedHat won't be providing it due to teh licence changes....

Offline

#2 2004-02-01 22:34:05

dp
Member
From: Zürich, Switzerland
Registered: 2003-05-27
Posts: 3,366
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

here the link to the announcement of the change of licence:

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/ … 01892.html

The purpose of these changes is to strengthen the "except claim you
wrote it" clause of the Project's licensing philosophy regarding binary
distributions of XFree86.  While the original license covered this
adequately for source code redistribution, it has always been lacking
where binary redistribution was concerned.

so why not still providing it in arch? (noone here does claim to have written xfree86, right? wink )


The impossible missions are the only ones which succeed.

Offline

#3 2004-02-03 02:04:00

skparkes
Member
Registered: 2003-12-11
Posts: 52

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

Just a guess, but Arch does provide MPlayer with all the codecs.  I don't think the devs will balk at XFree's liscense.

Later,

Isamoor

Offline

#4 2004-02-17 00:22:22

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

So it seems this situation is serious. Debian, OpenBSD, and Mandrake have all come out saying they won't use the new XFree86. Supposedly redhat is going to announce this soon as well.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#5 2004-02-17 01:07:04

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

as far as i can see this is a totally harmless lisence change. all one has to do is reproduce the copyright/license notice. what's the big deal?

it would seem as though the distros and the one bsd that is balking at it are the ones that probably alter the source for their own needs and profit. while not really giving XFree86 and its contributors acknowledgement.

that being said XFree86 has to get better and changing the license is hardly going to do make it better.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#6 2004-02-17 01:10:51

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

Its a legal problem. This extra "restriction" is not compatible with the GPL, so no GPL app can legally link to XFree86. This includes GNOME, KDE, and every other GPL X app.

So yeah, distributing GPL apps and XFree86 is possibly a copyright violation.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#7 2004-02-17 01:23:26

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

i see. thanks.

they sound about as smart as the people at SCO and RIAA.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#8 2004-02-17 03:04:13

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

sarah31 wrote:

i see. thanks.

they sound about as smart as the people at SCO and RIAA.

Yeah, the worst part is that a bunch of (knowledgeable) people warned them about what would happen, and they went through with it anyway.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#9 2004-02-17 03:30:28

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

I'm not quite sure if that's the case.  IANAL, but I read the license and tried to find some arguements about it being not GPL compatible (which was hard enough as it is).  None that I could find would hold water.  Most of them just waved their hands and said, "look at that, not GPL compatible, what are we going to do?"

The stuff you were talking about, with needing some special stuff for GPL software to link to it, apart from the fact that you say it's impossible, was one special case specific to one license.  Since this license isn't like that one, I see no problems.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#10 2004-02-17 03:33:53

contrasutra
Member
From: New Jersey
Registered: 2003-07-26
Posts: 507

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

Hey, IANAL either, so I'm just repeating what I heard.

But if multiple distributions are calling this GPL incompatible, you have to believe them. They wouldn't screw themselves unless there was some water to these claims. Because Lawyers have looked at this.


"Contrary to popular belief, penguins are not the salvation of modern technology.  Neither do they throw parties for the urban proletariat."

Offline

#11 2004-02-17 03:35:53

Xentac
Forum Fellow
From: Victoria, BC
Registered: 2003-01-17
Posts: 1,797
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

Mind giving me the links to the threads?  I want to read it myself.


I have discovered that all of mans unhappiness derives from only one source, not being able to sit quietly in a room
- Blaise Pascal

Offline

#12 2004-02-17 03:49:34

kritoke
Member
From: Texas, USA
Registered: 2003-08-01
Posts: 211
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

With Mandrake, it sounds like they just don't have the time to remodify a lot of their code and documentation.  The mandrake thread here: http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooke … g04636.php .  If it is just a case of having to redo a lot of files because they like to modify things, I would think arch is alright since its pretty much raw xfree86 anyway.
Kritoke


http://counter.li.org/ Registered Linux User #318963 kritoke@jabber.org

Offline

#13 2004-02-17 04:13:07

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

kritoke wrote:

With Mandrake, it sounds like they just don't have the time to remodify a lot of their code and documentation.  The mandrake thread here: http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooke … g04636.php .  If it is just a case of having to redo a lot of files because they like to modify things, I would think arch is alright since its pretty much raw xfree86 anyway.
Kritoke

you mean they don't have time to break X for hlf their users?  tongue

and before you say they wouldn't do such a thing...the box i now use as a router could use mandrake 8.1 beta but they broke the X driver for my video card for the final release .... and it is still broken from what i have been able to find.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#14 2004-02-17 08:04:30

Bobonov
Member
From: Roma - Italy
Registered: 2003-05-07
Posts: 295

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

As I wrote on another website it seem that developer at mandrake included in the distribution an automessing daemon because it is the only distribution I know that mess up without changing configuration or doing update.....

Offline

#15 2004-02-17 11:34:11

d3c3it
Member
From: Manchester, UK
Registered: 2003-09-10
Posts: 112
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

we could all use the new xfreedesktop server big_smile

and reply to skparkes, yes all the codecs are there smile


"Covered in blood, Cant understand" - Biffy Clyro

Offline

#16 2004-02-17 12:38:38

sarah31
Member
From: Middle of Canada
Registered: 2002-08-20
Posts: 2,975
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

xfreedesktop is not read for the world yet afaik.


AKA uknowme

I am not your friend

Offline

#17 2004-02-17 12:52:18

d3c3it
Member
From: Manchester, UK
Registered: 2003-09-10
Posts: 112
Website

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

its my poor attempt of being funny sad

no its not, there is beta code thou, ive not tired it


"Covered in blood, Cant understand" - Biffy Clyro

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB