Re: Replacement for XFree86...

[dereck <dereckhaskins@yahoo.com>]

> As stated as before - no internet access, but to my best knowledge several
> of the mentioned projects state that they can be *artistic, BSD, etc.* OR
> GPL.  I might be wrong, if I am apologies again.

You are not wrong, you are correct.  But that is exactly the point. 
They do NOT accept the GPL as their OWN license for the product.  They
write a license that allows others to write GPL'd software as derivative
(or compiled) products if they wish.  But they don't accept the GPL for
their own product - because such allowance of choice "downstream" would
be impossible.  They don't "force" you to use BSD, or artistic, or
whatever on your own use of their products.  But if they use the GPL,
the "downstream" use would be put in jeopardy.  Thus the licensing is
expressly NOT GPL.  (Which by the way is why RMS makes such a big deal
out of "GPL compatible".  Which really only means that downstream usage
_could_ be GPL'd.  Big mistake IMO, but it is only _my_ opinion.)

Frankly this is one time that *BSD advocates and Microsoft line on the
same side - the GPL is the "roach motel" (I'm quoting but I've lost the
attribution).  Code goes in but it can never come out.  Meaning the
"downstream" use is restricted.  Which is why none of the major OSS
projects use it.

best,
dereck