Re: XFree86 license

[gabe f <gabe_1@comcast.net>]

Theo de Raadt wrote:
>>>On Monday 16 February 2004 21:27, you wrote:
>>>
>>>>And if you don't like that, don't bother telling me. Tell them.
>>
>>>I fully support your decision Theo,
>>
>>True indeed. And Theo isn't the only one. Mandrake Linux reverted to
>>XFree86 4.3 for similar reasons. It'll be interesting to watch what
>>happens further.
> 
> 
> Do not be fooled when David Dawes tells you that their new license is
> like a 4-term BSD license.  The differences matter much more than the
> similarities.
> 
> The XFree86 codebase contains a whole bunch of files which have
> UCB-compatible 2-, 3-, or 4-term BSD licenses.  Those can get solved
> little by little in time by contacting those authors.
> 
> What Dawes has unilaterally added to XFree86 here is not a BSD license.
> 
> It is something else.
> 
> Many times we've seen GPL or less free licenses formatted like BSD
> licenses.  Don't be fooled.
> 
> 

Fooled, by what?

Their 1.1 third clause merely says that if there is documentation, they
don't want to be left out of the third party acknowledgements. This is
so far from the original BSD advertising clause.
The new license also still says they don't want to be used in any
advertising. If your product doesn't provide documentation XFree doesn't
ask that you make special arrangements just to get their name out
there -- seems pretty modest and unrestrictive to me.

And...

Why are you centering your dispute around Dawes? He's not the one 
seeking the credit -- his name is no where in the license. No one else
from OBSD has mentioned XFree86's leader, either.