Re: xfree86 license

[Marc Matteo <marcm@lectroid.net>]

On Tue, 2004-02-17 at 14:11 +1100, Darren Reed wrote:

> So what about the new license is unacceptable ?
> The grant of rights and permissions has not changed.

I believe it is due to the OpenBSD projects actively trying to remove
the "3rd and 4th clause" from existing software (where the author OKs
it) and not import anything else with it.

Not because of some hidden adgenda to not give credit to people (you'll
notice the name in the copyright)... but simply because we don't like
clauses.

> The problem (for non-BSD projects) is that the license has been
> changed with respect to advertising.  Whereas before it did not
> require attribution to the XFree86 project, it now does.

Which is interesting because no one seemed to get upset when Sun added
its little bits with the ECC stuff in OpenSSL.  Seemed a lot worse to me
then.

>   This
> part of the original UCB license caused rms & the linux community
> much angst.

Which is also odd to me... hmmm, "give credit" vs. "release your
source".  Which seems more intrusive?

This is why I like "free as in make a baby mulcher out of it".

> I also can't see why this change should be of concern to OpenBSD,
> it already ignores such advertising clause license requirements in
> code imported from NetBSD.

I'm sorry, I couldn't hear you over the baby mulcher.

Marc