🚀 go-pugleaf

On 08 Apr 1998 13:07:58 +0100, James Youngman <JYoungman@vggas.com> wrote:
>>>>>> "Richard" == Richard Wheeler <ric@jaws.osf.org> writes:
>
>  Richard> We actually like linux & the free software hacker community
>  Richard> and try to be good citizens.  Constructive suggestions
>  Richard> about how to meet both of the goals, I would guess, will be
>  Richard> welcomed by the X folks.
>
>I think it was posted by somebody in another thread, so you missed it.
>
>A solution that would make software-freedom advocates happy is a dual
>release; one release under the GPL (or the traditional MIT or XC
>licenses), and a second release under any commercial terms TOG sees
>fit.

When it is clear that there is legitimate desire for multiple sorts of
licenses, this suggests that perhaps the GPL is, in this case, not quite
the right choice. 

XFree86 is distributed under a "BSDL" sort of license, which has the
multiple benefits that:

a) Linux users and developers have been happy with the arrangement for
lo many years now.

b) FreeBSD users and developers have been happy with the arrangement for
lo many years now.

c) NetBSD users and developers have been happy with the arrangement for
lo many years now.

d) OpenBSD users and developers have been happy with the arrangement for
a somewhat shorter period of time.

e) Companies like Metro Link and Xi Graphics have been free to add in
support for graphics cards that could not be added in a GPLed version
due to NDAs.  (Perhaps the NDA is of questionable morality within the
"free software community." It is nonetheless quite legal.)

The implementations of X that people have been using for "lo many years
now" have generally been the "Sample Implementation."  

If you actively *want* to have the SI adopted by everyone, whether in
commercial or "free" realms, the BSDL is preferable as it allows them
all to use it in whatever fashion they prefer. 

The problem that has come up lately is that responsibility for
development of X fell fully into the hands of those that use it
commercially.  There was no formal/official representation in TOG of the
interests of non-commercial users of X.   Which is not, strictly
speaking, either a legal problem or a technical problem.   It is a
political problem.

It is also important that the "pendulum" not swing too far back in the
other direction. 

Supposing, as an alternative, the "free folk" stand wholeheartedly
behind TXP, and push for active rejection TOG as well as commercial
representation, then this has the opposite result.  Commercial users of
X would find the change unacceptable, and legitimately have a similar
complaint to what "free users" currently have. 

Being cooperative is important.

Which is quite clearly what the people at TXP intend to be. 

-- 
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." 
- Albert Einstein
cbbrowne@hex.net -  <http://www.hex.net/~cbbrowne/lsf.html>