At 22:29 5/20/2004, William M. Quarles wrote:
The GPL incompatibility is irrelevant.
[...]
Everything can still be distributed in binary form without violating anybody's license, since the the 1.1 license does not apply to the client side libraries.
I do not understand you. The GPL requires that source be made available to anyone to whom you distribute binary. So how is it in any way relevant that "everything can still be distributed in binary form"?
I think you're being a tad picky with me here. So let me try my best to give a picky response. I did not say "distributed in *binary-only* form." Your own sentence acknoledges that one can distribute in binary form, provided conditions. Just because I didn't expound upon those conditions does not mean that I was ignorant of them. Fedora Core is distributed in binary form, is it not? OK, then GET OVER IT. Fedora Core source code is made available (somewhat separately, however).
The issue that people seem to be making a fuss about (as best that I can understand) is that there are programs that link to X libraries, which once you have compiled them, you have created products that are derivative elements of software with two different licenses. If those license conflict, that software then cannot be used. However, since the XFree86 Project did not change the license on the client-side libraries, which is where the only current conflict with the GPL license exists, as far as I understand, there shouldn't be a problem. If this is not the case, please let me know.
Peace, William
