quote: EDIT: embarressing spelling mistake

Oh, the irony! ; )

quote: Original post by Magmai Kai Holmlor
The license didn''t really change, it''s just clearer what the intent always was. I prefer the xfree license, and those used by libraries such as boost.

The license is less restrictive than the GPL or LGPL, so I don''t see how it''s a conflict. GPL would taint the xfree license.

You, apparently, have ignored everything that''s happened in recent times, or have "read the licesne yourself" and prefer to trust your own judgement to that of a lawyer on this legal issue.

I see the point of the slippery slope argument, but an acknowledgement does not seem like a lot to ask for to me.

It's only required with binary-only redistribution or if you already provide documentation with other third-party credits. No "written"(printed) documentation, no third-party credits, but the source code, means no acknowledgement. Libraries (such as Gnome, KDE, gtk, & qt) are specifically excluded from requiring any acknowledgement.

[edited by - Magmai Kai Holmlor on March 3, 2004 10:07:00 PM]

again, you're trusting your own judgement over that of a lawyer's.

at the current time, they're saying this only applys to the server code _for now_.

Putting it in the server causes two problems:
1. Threat of application to the client code
2. Clear signal that David Dawes will do what he damn pleases about what he damn pleases and cannot be trusted in any way.

personally, I think the guy is scum because of what he's done recently.

Technically, server code based on the 1.1 license is only a problem for debian because it is absolutely not DFSG-free. The other distributions have just gotten completely disgusted and decided to ditch the project lead by this david dawes self-appointed leader (EDIT: toned it down a bit)

Most distributions will probably be switching to both a multiple X server capable distribution method, as well as making the X.org X server hosted at freedesktop.org (called Xorg, NOT XSERVER. xserver is keithp's kdrive and isn't... ready) the default X server.

[edited by - C-Junkie on March 4, 2004 9:41:18 PM]

I must be missing something, what exactly did David Dawes do that incites such negative sentiments?

You''d probably have to have read quite a bit on mailing lists to understand.

In short:
1. Kicks Keith Packard (one of THE smartest people there are with respect to X11 and graphics in general) out of XF86, for reasons that are entirely obfuscated. (I could probably give you a history, but that''s a sufficient explanation)
2. In responce to public outcry, creates a ''forum'' mailing list to discuss the project in general, which despite excitement about the possibility to fixing problems, results in nothing. (the forum mailinglist is now entirely about the license change)
3. Dissolution of the core team, which would be a good thing, if David Dawes hadn''t apparently taken it upon himself solely to take over.
4. Radical change to license which is both entirely uncalled-for and made without warning, or request for comments.