On Thu, Apr 08, 2004 at 01:07:45AM -0700, Nathan England wrote:
> I haven't paid much attention to this. Can anyone give a short
> description?
Recently, XFree86 changed their license, and the new license is
GPL-incompatible. After a community outcry over the practical
implications, it was announced that xlibs would remain under the old
license (although for how long is anybody's guess). Also, a few other
libraries (I can do some research later today and name names if you'd
like) are under the new license.
Basically, the license change[1] appears to be very similar to the old
BSD advertising clause, although not as obnoxious. Specifically, the
third clause, requiring a certain notice in the documentation. This
requirement is not in the GPL[2] and therefore conflicts with section 6:
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise
of the rights granted herein."
Because xlibs is currently under the old license, the problem is not
that bad *yet*. But suppose, for example, you want to use a driver or
module that doesn't come with XFree86 and it's GPL. You would then be
"combining" the two works (at least according to RMS, but I'm not going
to go there), and that's not allowed.
It's not that the new license is "bad" or that XFree86 is "less free"
than it was before. It's that the practical implications of the
GPL-incompatibility are not good.
> What are the drawbacks/advantages of each system?
At this point, the licensing issues are the main thing. X.Org 6.7 and
XFree86 4.4 are binary-compatible. In fact, X.Org 6.7 is forked from
XFree86 4.4RC2. But distributions have already announced that they
won't be shipping XFree86 4.4, and with the announcement of the X.Org
released, they've announced that they *will* be shipping it instead.
(See Kevin Brown's reply.)
> Are they both being actively developed?
Well, many of the major former XFree86 developers have moved to X.Org,
including Keith Packard, who some say has been the major driving force
behind XFree86 development for the last few years. David Dawes, who is
head of the XFree86 project, has assured everyone that XFree86 is going
to continue on just fine, thank-you-very-much. Many vendors are
throwing their weight behind the new X.Org.
Really, from what I understand, this fork was a long time coming
(growing dissatisfaction, etc.) and the license change only accelerated
the process by a few months.
> Do you really think distros will drop XFree for X ?
See above. Many already have.
I bought a Radeon 9200 last summer, and while it's supported by later
versions of X (I'm not sure if it's 4.2 or 4.3 -- 4.3, I think), the
support is still immature, so I decided to switch to Gentoo for the sole
purpose of being able to track the development versions of X more
easily. Just a few months after I did that, all this licensing stuff
happened and Gentoo announced that XF86 4.4 and later, as long as they
were under the new license, would never be in Gentoo. I was irritated.
When the new fork was announced, I got excited. :)
To reiterate, the two systems are basically equivalent, but I forsee
most distributions moving to X.Org in the future. There was already
momentum (due mostly to the political structure of XFree86 and resulting
slowness of development, in many cases) for a fork, and the license
change simply accelerated the process.
[1]
http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html
[2]
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html
--
Bill Jonas * bill@billjonas.com * http://www.billjonas.com/
"It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your front door. You step
into the Road, and if you don't keep your feet, there is no knowing
where you might be swept off to." -- Bilbo Baggins
(text/plain)