XFree86, don't let the door hit you on the way out...

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Most people are well aware that xfree development has been less than fast over the past couple years, and recently a lot of things have been happening which I think have basically sentenced xfree to death. The main person responsible for things like XRender, fontconfig, and all of these modern things that have been incorporated into xfree the past few years, is Keith Packard ("keithp"). He made it known that he was interesting in starting a fork and was kicked off of the xfree core team last year. Sometime after that, he did fork xfree86, and started various projects from it, like the new x server simply known as xserver, revamped xlibs, and some revolutionary new extensions, which finally allow for "real" transparency and compositing in X, in a clean and sensible manner.

This stuff has been gaining a lot of momentum; there are tons of very smart and capable people working on it, and it has seemed pretty clear (to me at least) that xfree86 will be going the way of the dodo, and the new stuff, led by keithp, will eventually become the defacto open source X implementation. Recently, the xfree86 team disbanded, and just within the past couple days, they introduced a new official license, which includes an advertising clause (similar to the old BSD license), which makes the license incompatible with the GPL. RMS has replied, and many people hope that the xfree people (specifically David Dawes) will revert to the old license, but it seems very likely that they will keep it. This means the license is non-dfsg-free, and considering how much work debian people have to put into making xfree work on all 11 of their platforms, it seems to me that debian will no longer package xfree86 at all. Not to mention that people in general (i.e. besides debian) are not going to want to deal with something non-GPL-compatible. I'm not sure what exactly this implies for people packaging software, distro makers, etc, but I'm taking a wild guess that 4.3 will be the last xfree86 most people use.

 

[n0cmonkey]

The new XFree license is not like the old BSD license, IMO.
4.3.something is still under the old license, so dropping XFree totally would be stupid, again IMO.

Geez RMS annoys the heck out of me:

omething basically
similar in a way that is compatible with the GPL. The conflict comes
from the specific details of the requirement.

So the BSD license says to include the license. The XFree license says to include certain information in your documentation. Oooh. One added file: XFree86.required.info.txt. Ridiculous.

can we work together to investigate
whether you can do this and still achieve your other goals?

Translated it means: Change your license to meet our goals. The words he used makes it seem like he wants to work out a solution, compromise. But he has shown that he is not willing to compromise.

I can understand him being unwavering in his quest, but does he have to do so in such an a-holish way? If he would admit he isn't going to budge and that he wants everyone else to adhere to his beliefs and he wouldn't be so freaking annoying.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The new XFree license is not like the old BSD license, IMO.

From the new xfree license:

The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

From the old bsd license:

All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

Seems fairly similar. Not identical, but required advertisement nonetheless.

4.3.something is still under the old license, so dropping XFree totally would be stupid, again IMO.

I never said delete xfree 4.3 from your hard drive, I said that it's probably the last release that will be widely used.

Geez RMS annoys the heck out of me

.....

Translated it means: Change your license to meet our goals. The words he used makes it seem like he wants to work out a solution, compromise. But he has shown that he is not willing to compromise.

I can understand him being unwavering in his quest, but does he have to do so in such an a-holish way? If he would admit he isn't going to budge and that he wants everyone else to adhere to his beliefs and he wouldn't be so freaking annoying.

It's not really about him, it's about the GPL. It is the accepted de-facto license in the open source world, and anything incompatible with it is considered somewhat of an outcast, due to all of the problems with linking etc etc. Trust me, I despise the fsf/gnu agenda and the gpl's requirements as much as anyone, but it's there, and it's not going away. I tend to ignore the philosophical side of it (because I think it's mostly lame), but you can't ignore the legal side of it.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
The new XFree license is not like the old BSD license, IMO.

From the new xfree license:

The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment: "This product includes software developed by The XFree86 Project, Inc (http://www.xfree86.org/) and its contributors", in the same place and form as other third-party acknowledgments. Alternately, this acknowledgment may appear in the software itself, in the same form and location as other such third-party acknowledgments.

This is more similar to the newer BSD license's requirement of including the copyright. If I write a program that includes XFree stuff, I do not have to put that line in the advertisement for my product, just in the documentation with any other licenses and copyright notices.

From the old bsd license:

All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement: This product includes software developed by the University of California, Berkeley and its contributors."

With this I would have to put that information in all advertisements and whatnot. So my ad in SysAdmin magazine would require that information with the old BSD license, but not with the XFree license.

Seems fairly similar. Not identical, but required advertisement nonetheless.

I think the differences are big enough that they shouldn't be compared. I am not trying to argue that the new XFree license is compatible or incompatible, just that I don't think it's anything like the old BSD license

4.3.something is still under the old license, so dropping XFree totally would be stupid, again IMO.

I never said delete xfree 4.3 from your hard drive, I said that it's probably the last release that will be widely used.

I read the following differently:

it seems to me that debian will no longer package xfree86 at all.

No biggie

Geez RMS annoys the heck out of me

.....

Translated it means: Change your license to meet our goals. The words he used makes it seem like he wants to work out a solution, compromise. But he has shown that he is not willing to compromise.

I can understand him being unwavering in his quest, but does he have to do so in such an a-holish way? If he would admit he isn't going to budge and that he wants everyone else to adhere to his beliefs and he wouldn't be so freaking annoying.

It's not really about him, it's about the GPL. It is the accepted de-facto license in the open source world, and anything incompatible with it is considered somewhat of an outcast, due to all of the problems with linking etc etc. Trust me, I despise the fsf/gnu agenda and the gpl's requirements as much as anyone, but it's there, and it's not going away. I tend to ignore the philosophical side of it (because I think it's mostly lame), but you can't ignore the legal side of it.

OpenSSL is widely accepted, even though it is incompatible with the GPL (hell it's even considered fairly ANTI-GPL). I don't necessarily think the GPL should change, but I dislike RMS. A lot.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think the differences are big enough that they shouldn't be compared. I am not trying to argue that the new XFree license is compatible or incompatible, just that I don't think it's anything like the old BSD license

Hm, I agree with you now. Thanks for pointing out the differences. In fact, if you think about this sentence carefully:

The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment

it doesn't require any acknowledgment, if there's no end-user documentation included in the distribution. So you could just stick the docs in their own package. That would be lame, though.

OpenSSL is widely accepted, even though it is incompatible with the GPL (hell it's even considered fairly ANTI-GPL). I don't necessarily think the GPL should change, but I dislike RMS. A lot.

I think that people fighting back and forth with their petty ideological arguments is boring. The OpenSSL license seems extremely childish to me, but that's just MO. I really dislike all of the problems that the GPL causes for people who don't care about fighting against the "evils" of closed source software. "oh hey, that's neat how that code works, I could use that ... oh wait, it's GPLed. Now I have to be really careful to go re-write the same concept without actually copying or re-writing the same code." I also don't understand why people who claim that they want the most freedom possible use the BSD license instead of the X/MIT license.

 

[Haden]

We ain't loosing much, peek in 4.4 changelog reveals there is nothing new except autoconfig (most distros generate config anyway) and some drivers.
BTW, KP is also responsible for Xrandr.
I feel sorry for XFree86 developers (guys who actually create code): political issues take any coding pleasure away.
As for XServer, it's already pretty usable, drivers are big issue of course, however I was watching mailling list very closely (i.e. read every mail) and it's obviuos it will take lots of efforts to get OpenGL backend working (infact, using 2D acc. is, imo, better solution for R1. Design being good, there will be no problems getting OG later).

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

#freedesktop on freenode is also a good place to listen to chatter (keithp, jim gettys, and pretty much everyone else afaik is there)

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

I think the differences are big enough that they shouldn't be compared. I am not trying to argue that the new XFree license is compatible or incompatible, just that I don't think it's anything like the old BSD license

Hm, I agree with you now. Thanks for pointing out the differences. In fact, if you think about this sentence carefully:

The end-user documentation included with the redistribution, if any, must include the following acknowledgment

it doesn't require any acknowledgment, if there's no end-user documentation included in the distribution. So you could just stick the docs in their own package. That would be lame, though.

Like I said, just throw a file with those ackholedgements in it on the system. I think that should be enough, with a little man page adjustments. Of course, you mention documentation to a Linux developer than they go into convulsions.

OpenSSL is widely accepted, even though it is incompatible with the GPL (hell it's even considered fairly ANTI-GPL). I don't necessarily think the GPL should change, but I dislike RMS. A lot.

I think that people fighting back and forth with their petty ideological arguments is boring. The OpenSSL license seems extremely childish to me, but that's just MO. I really dislike all of the problems that the GPL causes for people who don't care about fighting against the "evils" of closed source software. "oh hey, that's neat how that code works, I could use that ... oh wait, it's GPLed. Now I have to be really careful to go re-write the same concept without actually copying or re-writing the same code." I also don't understand why people who claim that they want the most freedom possible use the BSD license instead of the X/MIT license.

BSD license requires acknoledgement, which is enough for me. I wish that OpenSSL was 100% BSD licensed. It would make more sense for everyone. GPL users can use it, BSD users can use it, companies can use it easier (and spreading security around to more people is a good thing IMO). I get bored with the politics of things.

 

[n0cmonkey]

My only concern with these XFree replacements is their non-Intel/Linux support. XFree has worked to keep various archs/OSes working. What kind of Open/NetBSD support are we seeing in these other projects? I haven't checked because I figured they wouldn't be used on OpenBSD in the near future

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
My only concern with these XFree replacements is their non-Intel/Linux support. XFree has worked to keep various archs/OSes working. What kind of Open/NetBSD support are we seeing in these other projects? I haven't checked because I figured they wouldn't be used on OpenBSD in the near future

Actually debian has done a lot of work making xfree work on various archs, while xfree people fail to integrate the work upstream. The freedesktop.org stuff is MUCH more open. Anyone that wants to work on non-linux/intel support would be more than welcome, I am sure. As things come together and popularity and momentum build, these people will come around. It's just a matter of time.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey
My only concern with these XFree replacements is their non-Intel/Linux support. XFree has worked to keep various archs/OSes working. What kind of Open/NetBSD support are we seeing in these other projects? I haven't checked because I figured they wouldn't be used on OpenBSD in the near future

Actually debian has done a lot of work making xfree work on various archs, while xfree people fail to integrate the work upstream. The freedesktop.org stuff is MUCH more open. Anyone that wants to work on non-linux/intel support would be more than welcome, I am sure. As things come together and popularity and momentum build, these people will come around. It's just a matter of time.

I know OpenBSD also has thier own XFree tree on thier CVS. I don't know how much different it is than the XFree tree, but I am sure it has been customized.

This will be a project to keep an eye on in the future, but I doubt I'll worry about it much until OpenBSD decides to switch, which may never happen

 

[Buddha Bart]

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Recently, the xfree86 team disbanded, and just within the past couple days, they introduced a new official license...

Aside from the fact that that sentance contradicts itself, its not true.

Read this and its comments,
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/31/1337209&mode=nested&tid=104&tid=185&tid=189

specifically this comment,
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91077&cid=7845466

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Buddha Bart

Originally posted by: BingBongWongFooey
Recently, the xfree86 team disbanded, and just within the past couple days, they introduced a new official license...

Aside from the fact that that sentance contradicts itself, its not true.

Read this and its comments,
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=03/12/31/1337209&mode=nested&tid=104&tid=185&tid=189

specifically this comment,
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=91077&cid=7845466

Er. I can't believe I typed team. I meant core group (trust me, I know better).

Yes, the core group disbanding theoretically means good things, blah blah, but as far as I know, most active developers have already left xfree86.

 

[drag]

I know we have Xserver to replace one half of Xfree, but what about the xclient half? Anybody working on that, or am I just confused about the name of the project...

 

[TerryMathews]

You're confused. It's easy to do though, as XFree uses strange definitions for common terms.

Server refers to the actual drawing engine (XFree86 or XServer)

Client refers to programs drawing on server (GNOME, KDE, Mozilla, MAME, etc.)

Basically, Xserver is a drop-in replacement for XFree86. Or, it will be.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: drag
I know we have Xserver to replace one half of Xfree, but what about the xclient half? Anybody working on that, or am I just confused about the name of the project...

http://freedesktop.org/Software/xapps
http://cvs.freedesktop.org/?cvsroot=xapps

But really - who uses the apps distributed with xfree86? A lot of them are pretty obsolete and worthless. I guess xterm isn't going to be maintained in xapps, which somewhat surprised me. But it's not a small app to maintain, and I guess it's pretty crusty. keithp has a patch somewhere to make xterm use the new transparency stuff.

 

[Nothinman]

I know OpenBSD also has thier own XFree tree on thier CVS. I don't know how much different it is than the XFree tree, but I am sure it has been customized.

I'd be interested to see how big of a patch that custom X tree would be, a few weeks ago when I looked at the patches in the Debian packages this is what I got from diffstat: 565 files changed, 21106 insertions(+), 6862 deletions(-)

That's a lot of changes that hadn't been accepted upstream into the official XFree86.org tree.

I know we have Xserver to replace one half of Xfree, but what about the xclient half? Anybody working on that, or am I just confused about the name of the project...

That would be xlibs.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

I know we have Xserver to replace one half of Xfree, but what about the xclient half? Anybody working on that, or am I just confused about the name of the project...

That would be xlibs.

eh? xfree86 includes a bunch of clients.

 

[Nothinman]

eh? xfree86 includes a bunch of clients.

But xlib is what all the clients use to talk to the X server, almost nothing uses the X protocol directly.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

eh? xfree86 includes a bunch of clients.

But xlib is what all the clients use to talk to the X server, almost nothing uses the X protocol directly.

yeah, but xlib isn't a client. a web browser uses http, but http isn't a web browser.

 

[drag]

Ok, I thought that it required a specific xclient deamon or something.


Just as long as Xserver will be able to work with most everything, that's what matters.

Like for instance I run GDM on my main machine, and when I come home I like to have my x server on my laptop occasionally as a x terminal and use xdmcp to login into it. As long as I can do all that jazz then I would be very happy camper.

 

[Barnaby W. Füi]

An X client is an X application.

Xserver should work fine with everything, that's the beauty of X11.

 

[NuclearFusi0n]

The sooner we can get xserver in and xfree86 out, the better, IMO. I just wish ATI would help them out a little with drivers.

I would love to have the last laugh as my OS X using friend(s) ridicule my desktop. Kahakai helps shut them up though, xserver should be the final nail in the coffin.

 

[pitupepito2000]

Originally posted by: NuclearFusi0n
The sooner we can get xserver in and xfree86 out, the better, IMO. I just wish ATI would help them out a little with drivers.

I would love to have the last laugh as my OS X using friend(s) ridicule my desktop. Kahakai helps shut them up though, xserver should be the final nail in the coffin.

I agree with you NuclearFusi0n, I love kahakai. I don't know a lot about the stuff in this thread, but it is an interesting read.

thanks,
pitupepito

 

[n0cmonkey]

OpenBSD joins Debian:
Like other projects, we will not be incorporating new code from David
Dawes into the XFree86 codebase used in OpenBSD. All such changes
have to be skipped, rewritten, or you can contact the XFree86 group
and place your own efforts to repair this damage.

I've tried to negotiate with David Dawes, and show him that his new
license is not acceptable, and he has been hostile and it has gone
nowhere. He keeps insisting that his license is a standard BSD
licenses, yet, he won't use the same words that Berkeley used; if his
words were intended to be compatible to the Berkeley spirit then he
would be happy to use the same words; but he is not, and insists on
different words which a lot of the community has trouble with.

It seems like every 8 years or so we have to go through some period
where someone tries to take free software and makes it less free
because they don't feel they are getting enough credit.

This is final; if that license stands, there will be forking.

And if you don't like that, don't bother telling me. Tell them.

From Theo's message