Xfree86 4.4.0

cmf · 2004-02-01 18:41:56

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....

dp · 2004-02-01 22:34:05

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? )

skparkes · 2004-02-03 02:04:00

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

contrasutra · 2004-02-17 00:22:22

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.

sarah31 · 2004-02-17 01:07:04

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.

contrasutra · 2004-02-17 01:10:51

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.

sarah31 · 2004-02-17 01:23:26

i see. thanks.

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

contrasutra · 2004-02-17 03:04:13

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.

Xentac · 2004-02-17 03:30:28

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.

contrasutra · 2004-02-17 03:33:53

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.

Xentac · 2004-02-17 03:35:53

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

kritoke · 2004-02-17 03:49:34

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

sarah31 · 2004-02-17 04:13:07

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?

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.

Bobonov · 2004-02-17 08:04:30

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.....

d3c3it · 2004-02-17 11:34:11

we could all use the new xfreedesktop server

and reply to skparkes, yes all the codecs are there

sarah31 · 2004-02-17 12:38:38

xfreedesktop is not read for the world yet afaik.

d3c3it · 2004-02-17 12:52:18

its my poor attempt of being funny

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

Arch Linux

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

Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

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

Re: Xfree86 4.4.0

Board footer