Eric,
I have been researching this. Please enlighten me on the following, as I have not found the answers anywhere, other than people blasting each other for being ignorant (seriously, if you know more than I do, I would really appreciate it): In what way is the XFree86 1.1 license different from the modified BSD license, (other than the restriction on advertising at the end of the XFree86 1.0 license, which was already in the XFree86 1.0 license)? What is the specific change from 1.0 to 1.1 that made the XFree86 License incompatible with GPL 2 (because all of the changes I have seen are already in the modified BSD license)? Why are people complaining about the advertising clause, since that is exactly the same in the 1.1 license as it was in the 1.0 license?
If you had issues with me saying:
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 think that you are being picky with me, as Rodolfo was. I won't replicate my entire reply to Rodolfo, I'll just refer you back to his message and my reply, but the main point for those who choose to be picky is that I did not say "distributed in binary-only form." I understand that source code has to come along with it.
I understand that I have the choice to use different software. I emphasized that in my first message on this thread.
I have been using open source software for five years. I've been a systems administrator for four years (and yes, not just on my own PC; I've only been doing that for two years and a few months). I have been actively participating in requesting and providing support, as well as reporting bugs. I am a scientific programmer, so I am not much use programming OS stuff. However, it would be really sad after all of this if I did not understand how free software works. That being said, I certainly and humbly acknowledge that there is an incredibly large number of people out there who know more than I do about GNU/Linux than me. If there are any points that I have not already clarified on in this e-mail or in the one to Rodolfo which still show that I lack understanding of the general concepts of free/open software, I actually would seriously and deeply appreciate a point-by-point analysis, because I've read everywhere that I could.
Peace, William
Eric Diamond wrote:
William,
This is going to sound harsh. I don't mean it to be. But...
The arguments you put forth demonstrate a complete misunderstnding of the general concepts of free/open software. I'm not going to try to correct you on a point by point basis because the fact that you're on this list means that you are capable of doing the requisite research for yourself. I do on the other hand, strongly urge you to do that research.
I am also going to remind you of one of the prime plusses of open software from a users standpoint. If you, personally, prefer to run XFree86, then by all means please do so! There is absolutely nothing preventing you from downloading the latest source tarballs and installing it yourself. Just because it doesn't come as part of the FC2 distribution doesn't mean it won't run on FC2.
Eric Diamond
eDiamond Networking & Security
eric <at> ediamond [dot] net
