From owner-freebsd-x11@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Mar 3 20:04:44 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4B04416A4CE; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:04:44 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp02bg.007mundo.com (mail02.etb.net.co [63.171.232.175]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F08A43D1D; Wed, 3 Mar 2004 20:04:43 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from giffunip@asme.org) Received: from exfe01bg.007mundo.com ([192.168.168.171]) by smtp02bg.007mundo.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:05:27 -0500 thread-index: AcQBneyOVJFaiCquTQeWAX5V3uwnKQ== Received: from asme.org ([200.119.81.30]) by exfe01bg.007mundo.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(5.0.2195.6713); Wed, 3 Mar 2004 23:05:25 -0500 Message-ID: <4046AAE2.2070201@asme.org> Content-Class: urn:content-classes:message Priority: normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4927.1200 Importance: normal Date: Wed, 03 Mar 2004 23:04:50 -0500 From: "Pedro F. Giffuni" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Win 9x 4.90; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) X-Accept-Language: it, es-CO, en, fr-fr MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Mar 2004 04:05:26.0239 (UTC) FILETIME=[EC7DFEF0:01C4019D] cc: Mike Jakubik cc: freebsd-ports@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: XFree86 4.4.0 X-BeenThere: freebsd-x11@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: X11 on FreeBSD -- maintaining and support List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 04 Mar 2004 04:04:44 -0000 This is just IMHO; The license change doesn't have any effect whatsoever. As the thread in XFree86 showed, the new XFree86 license is not the only license in the code that is not 'GPL-compatible', furthermore, according to the FAQ: "To avoid issues with application programs such as KDE and GNOME and other X-based applications, that are licensed under the GPL, the 1.1 licence is not being applied to client side libraries." Again IMHO, the new license doesn't seem less ethical than the original BSD license and we didn't have any problem with that. Even more IMHO, all this license discussion is caused because the GPL people are just discovering they are not alone or autosufficent.. I don't believe RMS's explanation of why the GPL'd can link to a propietary libc, but not to a propietary xlib. In sum, i don't want to start a license thread, but I would expect the only reason we don't have an XFree 4.4.0 port is because no one has found the time to update it. Pedro.