Apparently no XF86 4.4 for Linux

[mobrien_12]

http://developers.slashdot.org/developers/04/02/16/2030207.shtml?tid=106&tid=147&tid=185&tid=187

Apparently, the XF86 team's new licence is incompatible with the GPL, so we cannot look forward to XF86 4.4 in Linux Distributions.

According to the discussions on slashdot, this also screws BSD distribuitons because GPL'd software can't be linked to XF86 4.4 (no gnome, kde, etc.)

[restin256]

Gimmie an F.

This is going to set back Linux's growth at least a little. If someone else modified and re-released the code for XFree86 4.3 and modified/rewrote it, and copywrighted it to the GPL, they could probably include it in future distros. But, so many people would do it that there would be no organization of it.

[mobrien_12]

"F."

I really don't know what the XF86 group is thinking.  Why would they want to make good free software, then change the licence to force most distributors to avoid their new stuff?

BTW, I should clarify something in my earlier post.  People can compile GPL code against the new XF86 libraries, but they can't distribute binaries.

That means if BSD users want GPLd GUI software, each individual user will have to compile every single GPLd GUI library (like Qt) and every single gpl app from source.  This would take a lot of time.  

So we have Linux distributors who can't use XF86 4.4 and BSD distributors who won't want to. And for what?  The XF86 team gets their precious advertising clause and nobody uses their work.

BLEAH.

[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[SAJChurchey]

The only distro to officially announce their NON-use of XFree86 4.4 is Mandrake, and I doubt that all of the distros will follow suit.  I'm betting that RH will keep using it regardless of the license change, and SuSE has been known to offer packages with various types of licenses.  So I'm not sure if they will quit implementing it either.  

As long as the source code is available, I really don't see a problem w/ it.

[flap]

Because it has an obnoxious and petty licensing clause that's so inconvenient it may as well be proprietary. You don't see the problem in not being able to distribute pre-compiled software linking to X?

I hope all the other distros follow suit and they're forced to change the licence back. This (from RH) was linked to on /.:
http://freedesktop.org/pipermail/x-packagers/2004-February/000004.html

[ February 17, 2004: Message edited by: flap ]

[preacher]

Idiots don't know what they are doing. If they wanted to do this, they should have created two seperate versions, the GPL'd version that everyone uses, and the non-GPL'd version that has features that the GPL'd version doesn't, but fully supports programs written for the GPL'd version.

This would have saved all the hassles. By the way, I don't even have to ask if Debian will use this, I know they won't.

[preacher]

Ok I just read this
http://archives.mandrakelinux.com/cooker/2004-02/msg04636.php

and the people at Mandrake think its a good idea to fork the development too.

[flap]

quote:Idiots don't know what they are doing. If they wanted to do this, they should have created two seperate versions, the GPL'd version that everyone uses, and the non-GPL'd version that has features that the GPL'd version doesn't, but fully supports programs written for the GPL'd version.

Well actually X has never been GPL'd.

I can't see this sticking. Once they realise that nobody is going to use 4.4 they'll probably relent.

[M51DPS]

It turns out that now so is Debian, Gentoo, Red Hat, and OpenBSD. Also, Fedora might be getting ready to do the same. I'm getting the feeling that they may need to get another new license soon . . .

[solo]

This could be a good thing. If XFree86 held out and let itself rot, it would force one of the two forks to be chosen by our large consortium of distributors. If the fd.o fork is chosen, people would get it ready for every day use, because currently the fd.o developers don't wish to create a reliable server anyway, just use it for development.
Why? Because Xserver supports translucency and other fine features.

[enjoijeff]

Why does your date say March 8?

[KernelPanic]

Broken clock.

[hm_murdock]

question:

why does it matter if the damn thing is GPL?

as long as the binaries can be freely distributed, isn't that all that fucking matters?

or is this another rhetoric problem? is this another one of those feel-good "Open Source Only" things?

if it is, then I suggest somebody re-thinks it quick.

[KernelPanic]

quote:Originally posted by jimmyjames.sytes.net:
question:

why does it matter if the damn thing is GPL?

as long as the binaries can be freely distributed, isn't that all that fucking matters?

or is this another rhetoric problem? is this another one of those feel-good "Open Source Only" things?

if it is, then I suggest somebody re-thinks it quick.

Nobody wants it to be GPL, the problem is they have made Xfree incompatible with GPL apps which effectively rules it out of use for any of the major distros.

[hm_murdock]

lol

how is it incompatible?