Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 20-Apr-2024 00:17:25 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

   • Drew DeVault

   @khm

   Here is a quote from wikipedia basically agreeing with what I said word for word.

   The newer terms are referred to as the XFree86 License 1.1. Many projects relying on XFree86 found the new license unacceptable, and the Free Software Foundation considers it incompatible with the version 2 of the GNU General Public License, though compatible with version 3.

   @drewdevault

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 20-Apr-2024 00:32:45 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault
     • Patrick Seafield

     @ppseafield

     Because that term violated the GPL which could not be changed because the license was viral.

     The text from Wikipedia was clear on that I think.

     @khm @drewdevault

   • Embed this notice
     Patrick Seafield (ppseafield@mastodon.social)'s status on Saturday, 20-Apr-2024 00:32:46 JST Patrick Seafield

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault

     @freemo @khm @drewdevault

     Here's the text of the added clause that was the last straw (the last of many other issues):

     > Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.

     How does that relate to copyleft? The GPL doesn't restrict anyone's ability to market the inclusion of GPL software.

   • Embed this notice
     🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱 (freemo@qoto.org)'s status on Saturday, 20-Apr-2024 01:11:45 JST 🎓 Doc Freemo :jpf: 🇳🇱

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault
     • rakoo

     @rakoo

     That is correct, it is the other copyleft licenses in the eco system whose viral nature and incompatibility with the clause that caused the issue.

     @drewdevault @khm

   • Embed this notice
     rakoo (rakoo@blah.rako.space)'s status on Saturday, 20-Apr-2024 01:11:50 JST rakoo

     in reply to

     • Drew DeVault
     @freemo
     
     The part you left out of the quote:
     
     > Versions of XFree86 up to and including some release candidates for 4.4.0 were under the MIT License, a permissive, non-copyleft free software license. In February 2004, XFree86 4.4 was released with a change to the XFree86 license, by adding a credit clause,[23] similar to that in the original BSD license,[24] but broader in scope.
     
     The old license wasn't copyleft. Copyleft didn't cause the fork.
     
     @khm @drewdevault