Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3 -configure problems

[Marc Aurele La France]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I have a couple of problems when running XFree86 -configure on Solaris
> 2.5.1 x86, with two Matrox G450 cards.

> The first is that it exits with:

>Fatal server error:
>xf86MapVidMem:  mmap failure:  No such device or address

> I have determined that the place that this is happening is line 111 of
> int10/generic.c, in the xf86ExtendedInitInt10 function:

> #ifdef _PC
> if (!sysMem)
> sysMem = xf86MapVidMem(screen, VIDMEM_MMIO, V_BIOS,
>BIOS_SIZE + SYS_BIOS - V_BIOS);

> This function is also called when running the server (with the same values
> passed to xf86MapVidMem) but with no mmap failure.  I assume that there is
> some other initialization that is not being done with the -configure
> option.

Please try the attached patch.

> The XF86Config.new file is still produced though.  The second problem that
> I have is that the  VendorName and ModelName in the Monitor section get set
> to "Monitor Vendor" and "Monitor Model" instead of the actual names of the
> vendor and model like they used to be in 4.3.0.  When running the server,
> the Manufacturer and Model still appear correctly in the log.  This is a
> problem for me because the hsync range of the Kramer VP720-DS Seamless
> Switcher/Scaler that we use is not detected properly.  The log reports it
> as "Using default hsync range of 41.09-49.31 kHz", where in fact it is
> 15.36-90.  This means that I have to do some post-processing on the config
> file after XFree86 -configure to manually set the hysnc range based on what
> the VendorName is.  This is not possible any more since VendorName and
> ModelName are not configured properly.

This likely due to the same bug.

> Another thing that I have noticed is that the DPMS option is no longer
> added.  I don't understand why this would not be added anymore either for
> monitors reporting DPMS capabilities.  Are there any reasons why these
> things are no longer configured by -configure?  Can they be put back?

What do you mean "is no longer added"?  "added" to what?

Marc.

+--+---+
|  Marc Aurele La France   |  work:   1-780-492-9310   |
|  Computing and Network Services  |  fax:1-780-492-1729   |
|  352 General Services Building   |  email:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  |
|  University of Alberta   +---+
|  Edmonton, Alberta   |   |
|  T6G 2H1 | Standard disclaimers apply|
|  CANADA  |   |
+--+---+
XFree86 developer and VP.  ATI driver and X server internals.


Haigh.diff.gz
Description: Binary data

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3 -configure problems

[Andrew C Aitchison]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> I have a couple of problems when running XFree86 -configure on Solaris
> 2.5.1 x86, with two Matrox G450 cards.
> 
> The first is that it exits with:
> 
>Fatal server error:
>xf86MapVidMem:  mmap failure:  No such device or address
> 
> I have determined that the place that this is happening is line 111 of
> int10/generic.c, in the xf86ExtendedInitInt10 function:
> 
> #ifdef _PC
> if (!sysMem)
> sysMem = xf86MapVidMem(screen, VIDMEM_MMIO, V_BIOS,
>BIOS_SIZE + SYS_BIOS - V_BIOS);
> 
> This function is also called when running the server (with the same values
> passed to xf86MapVidMem) but with no mmap failure.  I assume that there is
> some other initialization that is not being done with the -configure
> option.

For long and complicated historical reasons the mga driver behaves 
differently in probe (-configure) and normal server startups.
There are two functions, MGAProbeDDC() and MGAdoDDC() which ask for DDC
monitor information. Your DPMS and VendorName problems are almost 
certainly because this information is not being found.

A "-configure" run calls MGAProbeDDC() which uses the VBE (video bios)
call to find DDC information, and a normal startup uses MGAdoDDC()
which tries two other ways of getting this information, before trying 
the VBE method (these two, related, methods involve the driver
getting the hardware to twiddle signal lines directly,
and predate the VBE method in the server).

Different methods have problems with different combinations of graphics 
card and monitor, and various options have been added over the years to 
accomodate complaints, while setting the defaults to keep the various 
developers happy.

By default MGAdoDDC() tries the three methods in order until one 
succeeds. There are *four* config options:
Option "noVBE"
Option "noDDC"
Option "noDDC1"
Option "noDDC2"
which you can use to disable the three methods. "noDDC" disables DDC1
and DDC2, but not as far as I can remember VBE.

> The XF86Config.new file is still produced though.  The second problem that
> I have is that the  VendorName and ModelName in the Monitor section get set
> to "Monitor Vendor" and "Monitor Model" instead of the actual names of the
> vendor and model like they used to be in 4.3.0.

You could try
Option "noVBE"
which should stop xf86ExtendedInitInt10() from being called,
but I can't see how you would get an monitor information if you did that.
Since probing worked in 4.3.0 I deduce that there is a new bug in the VBE 
code.

Can you compare logs from a probing and a normal run, and see if this
makes sense ? I'd like to see both logs too.

Do either of them show warnings such as
(WW) MGA(0): Video BIOS info block not detected!


>  Are there any reasons why these things are no longer configured
>  by -configure?  Can they be put back?

I don't think they have been deliberately taken out.

-- 
Andrew C. Aitchison Cambridge
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

XFree86 4.4.0 RC3 -configure problems

[lindsay . haigh]

I have a couple of problems when running XFree86 -configure on Solaris
2.5.1 x86, with two Matrox G450 cards.

The first is that it exits with:

   Fatal server error:
   xf86MapVidMem:  mmap failure:  No such device or address

I have determined that the place that this is happening is line 111 of
int10/generic.c, in the xf86ExtendedInitInt10 function:

#ifdef _PC
if (!sysMem)
sysMem = xf86MapVidMem(screen, VIDMEM_MMIO, V_BIOS,
   BIOS_SIZE + SYS_BIOS - V_BIOS);

This function is also called when running the server (with the same values
passed to xf86MapVidMem) but with no mmap failure.  I assume that there is
some other initialization that is not being done with the -configure
option.

The XF86Config.new file is still produced though.  The second problem that
I have is that the  VendorName and ModelName in the Monitor section get set
to "Monitor Vendor" and "Monitor Model" instead of the actual names of the
vendor and model like they used to be in 4.3.0.  When running the server,
the Manufacturer and Model still appear correctly in the log.  This is a
problem for me because the hsync range of the Kramer VP720-DS Seamless
Switcher/Scaler that we use is not detected properly.  The log reports it
as "Using default hsync range of 41.09-49.31 kHz", where in fact it is
15.36-90.  This means that I have to do some post-processing on the config
file after XFree86 -configure to manually set the hysnc range based on what
the VendorName is.  This is not possible any more since VendorName and
ModelName are not configured properly.

Another thing that I have noticed is that the DPMS option is no longer
added.  I don't understand why this would not be added anymore either for
monitors reporting DPMS capabilities.  Are there any reasons why these
things are no longer configured by -configure?  Can they be put back?

Regards,

Lindsay Haigh


___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Sergey Babkin]

Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
> 
> DD> [XFree86] was not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let
> DD> alone GPL-compatible.  Same after the change.  But then XFree86
> DD> has never factored in those two licensing criteria.
> 
> That's not quite the point, David.
> 
> Of the many reasons for which I was happy to contribute my work to
> XFree86 was that the old licence guaranteed that anyone could use my
> code.  It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I
> wrote, as it was for Apple or Microsoft.

I believe it still is.
 
> Unless I've missed a post, you still haven't explained what it is that
> you're trying to achieve with the new licence.  I would like to hear
> you justify that the advantages of the new licence justify what I
> perceive as a net loss in code availability.

My understanding is that they've essentially made it a copy of the
classic BSD license. So I don't see anyhting to worry about.
It's interesting that FreeBSD is actually moving in the opposite
direction: many of the newer contributions have the clause
"do not use our names in advertisement" removed.

-SB
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Mike A. Harris]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:

>The big deal you are all making about the GPL-incompatibility of
>the modified XFree86 licence is really quite minor in comparison.
>Lets face it:  Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86
>and its contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*)
>of the modified licence is just a poor excuse.

You're very wrong there David.  I believe that the XFree86
project very much deserves credit for any work that the project
does do.  I have every intention, when using XFree86 project
written code, or supplied patches, etc. of giving the project
full credit for anything that it has done regardless of whatever
license is used.

The credit is given not because of some license or legal
requirement, but because it is just the proper and moral thing to
do.

If there is any code from XFree86 which I personally have used
and did not give proper attribution for in the past, I definitely 
want to know about it, so that I can correct the problem.

I am a strong believer in giving proper credit where it is due, 
however I also realize that human err can cause mistakes to 
happen sometimes.  It is in everyone's best interest to work 
together in pointing out such cases of human error in a friendly 
way, so that everyone involved has proper credit given to them.


-- 
Mike A. Harris

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Kean Johnston]

My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't anyone
complaining before?
I hope my FQDN does not negatively impact my remarks but ... if no-one 
was complaining before why are you so determined to change the license? 
I remember the vague details of the mail thread that I think lead up to 
this. People were contributing code and were not being correctly 
attributed for their work. The way I see it, there are two ways to fix 
that problem. The first way (and one I would have personally chosen) is 
to be more diligent in producing release notes and in including the 
correct attributions. The second way, the one you seem to have opted 
for, is to change the license.

I respect your opinions considerably. You have always struck me as being 
very reasonable and fair. However, if I may be so bold as to point 
something out, you seem to be a bit blinded on this issue, or at the 
very least,a more fervent proponent of it than the original problem 
warrants.

I am assuming that for someone who has devoted as much time and energy 
to a project as you have that a change that would place its future 
adoption in jeopardy would be something you would fight against, not 
for. I dont belong to any Debian or other Linux lists so information I 
have on this is second-hand based on postings to this list, but if the 
license change is so unpallettable to people that major free software 
distributions are no longer willing to distribute XFree86, then 
regardless of any merits of the new license change, regardless of 
whether the objections are because of FUD or misinterpretation or even 
plain malevolence, it would seem that the prudent course of action would 
be to not change the license for the 4.4 release and take more time 
either fixing people's opinions or fixing the wording of the license.

One final point to consider (it may already have been considered, I 
confess I dont read absolutely every piece of mail on this subject). 
Suppose there is a file foo.c in the distribution. It is currently 
licensed under version 1.0 of the XFree license. The people who 
contributed the code or made changes to it did so with the assumption 
that that was the license that would be applied to the code. If that 
license is now simply changed to 1.1, would you not need the permission 
of every single contributor to do so? Even if you can legally prove that 
no rights or priveliges granted under the old license are taken away by 
the new, perhaps the new restrictions placed by the 1.1 license would be 
unacceptable to the original contributors. I realize that the original 
license does not require that, but I think good faith does. Since some 
of the contributors of that old code have very clearly spoken up here 
and objected to the new license (and the reasons for their objectsions 
are really not germaine) I think if you proceed with the license change 
that you do so knowing that you are doing so against the contributors 
wishes, and you are likely to scare off very valued developers.

Kean

PS. If the term 'you' here is inappropriately specific to you David, and 
more appropriately interpreted as a royal 'you' that means the XFree86 
board, then please interpret it that way.
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [forum] Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Kendall Bennett]

David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> > > Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and its
> > > contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of the
> > > modified licence is just a poor excuse.
> >
> >I think it's unfair to assume that, David, especially since there have been
> >severl reasoned disagreements with your position from people who have been
> >active, useful contributors to XFree86. 
> 
> The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."

No, the most reasoned argument so far is that this attribution clause 
puts a major burden on anyone wishing to distribute binaries built from 
XFree86. It does not seem like such a big burden right now when there is 
only one 'contributor' to be attributed (The XFree86 Project), but it 
gets ridiculously out of control 5 years down the track when now there 
are hundreds of contributors all requiring attribution if they have 
chosen to use the same license. If a vendor shipping these binaries 
forgets to attribute *one* developer, they have *violated the license 
agreement*! Most vendors will simply not be willing to take that risk.

This exact problem is also why the original BSD license was changed in 
the first place, and the reason the GPL licenses do not include 
advertising clauses. The only requirement is that attribution cannot be 
removed *from the source code*.

One thing that none of us have yet to see is a valid explanation for is 
exactly *why* this license change was warranted in the first place. You 
say it is necessary, but fail to back it up with any evidence to suggest 
that XFree86 Project Inc copyrighted code has been used in violation of 
it's license, or that there are cases where the code has been used and 
the XFree86 Project Inc feels they have been done wrong because they were 
not attributed properly.

Can you provide us with clear examples?

More importantly why is it now suddenly such a desireable thing for the 
XFree86 Project Inc. to be attributed in end user documentation when the 
previous licenses have been accepted for many, many years? I always 
though the whole point of the MIT/X11 licensing was that it was *OK* for 
developers to use the source code for any purpose, whether Open Source or 
proprietary. Many a developer has been chased off the XFree86 developer 
mailing lists in the past when they got upset that someone might use code 
they contributed for proprietary purposes. Anyone contributing to the 
project *knows* that is acceptable and are happy with that condition. If 
not, they shouldn't be contributing.

However now you are trying to change the rules and say 'you can use it, 
but you sure better tell people I wrong some of that code!'. What we want 
to know is why is this now suddenly necessary?

> Claiming that the new license fits neither the FSF Free Software
> definition or the Open Source Definition when the offending clause
> is close to that in the Apache 1.1 licence, and milder than that in
> the original BSD license, both of which are both FSF-free and
> OSI-open, is not a reasoned disagreement.  It is FUD. 

I fail to see what the Apache 1.1 license has to do with anything XFree86 
related. Nor what the original BSD license has to do with it. The BSD 
license was *CHANGED*, specifically to avoid these issues. As Richard has 
already stated, when the BSD license change occurred it covered *all* 
existing code under the existing BSD license. So if there is code in 
XFree86 that is under the original BSD license and originally came from 
BSD, it can be changed to the new license (provided of course any 
additional authors also agree, if there are any).

So far the only FUD I am seeing is coming from the XFree86 Project Inc. 
FUD because you still won't give a valid reason for why this license 
needed to be changed in the first place.

> My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has
> not changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't
> anyone complaining before? 

Because it *IS* a lot worse now than it was before. Significantly worse. 
Why can't you see that?

Regards,

---
Kendall Bennett
Chief Executive Officer
SciTech Software, Inc.
Phone: (530) 894 8400
http://www.scitechsoft.com

~ SciTech SNAP - The future of device driver technology! ~

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [forum] Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Paul Vojta]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 01:24:15PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>
> The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."

What about, ``others have tried this sort of thing and decided it was a
bad idea''?

What about, ``others (e.g., X.org) are forking the code as a result of
these changes''?

> My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
> changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't anyone
> complaining before?

Because it *was* different before.  Courtesy of www.archive.org, the
page http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licence.html used to read (in part):

| The main licence we use is based on the traditional Massachusetts
| Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, often called
| the "MIT licence" or "X11 licence". The X11 licence does not impose any
| conditions on the modification or redistribution of either the source
| code or binaries other than requiring that copyright and/or licence
| notices are left intact.

Now that text reads:

| The main licence we use is derived from the traditional Massachusetts
| Institute of Technology (MIT) X11/X Consortium licence, the Berkely [sic]
| Standard [sic] Distribution (BSD) license, and the Apache 1.1 licence.
| The XFree86 Project's licence does not impose any conditions on the
| modification or redistribution of the source code or binaries other
| than requiring that copyright and/or licence notices are left intact,
| ***and that due credit is given*** [emphasis added].


Followups are being (I hope) redirected to [EMAIL PROTECTED] (there's
no reason to post this junk on devel).

--
Paul Vojta, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

DD> Even FreeType requires something in the documentation

I know that.  I disagree with FreeType's licensing as much as I
disagree with the new XFree86 license, and I have told David Turner
what I think about it.

David, the fact that other people use silly licensing terms does not
mean that we should do.

Juliusz
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: [forum] Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Marc Evans]

On Wed, 18 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:35AM +, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
>
> >There have been almost no expressions of support for this change, and
> >coherent objections from many of those whose contributions matter to the
> >project. I'm surprised you're still going ahead with it.
>
> I can't speak for why the XFree86 board that voted unanimously for the
> change, (and some of whom were advocating more radical changes), have
> hung me out to dry on this.  I also can't speak for why some developers
> have privately supported the change, but won't do so publicly.  But then
> taking the heat on things like this comes with the job.  And I have very
> thick asbestos undies, but boy do they itch :-)
>
> David

I don't believe that the BoD have "hung [you] out to dry". I know that I
personally believe that groups which have officers and a BoD usually best
function when there is a single unified voice that speaks, representing
the group(s). This responsibility most often falls to the President.
While there is a group of reactors that have associated their comments
specifically with you, David, the reality, in my opinion, is that the BoD
should be the target of those comments, and that is how I personally
receive them. Of course when you feel the way that you have stated above,
that implies that what I am saying is not necessarily what you believe is
how the group operates. That is an issue which we should resolve. I can
accept that and therefore followup here, stating that my personal opinion
is that you have represented what the BoD discussed and acted upon in a
reasonably concise manor. I also acknowledge that I have read and continue
to ponder the reactions, both positive and negative, that have resulted.
Should the BoD hold another meeting with the licensing issue on the
agenda, I believe that we will have a sufficient set of information to be
able to discuss the topic in detail.

- Marc
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 08:30:48PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>>> It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I wrote,
>>> as it was for Apple or Microsoft.
>
>DD> They still can use your code, because *you* choose the licence for
>DD> your code.
>
>And you choose one for yours, and Mark for his?  The situation is
>going to become mighty confused.  Are you trying to reduce the
>unemployment rate among lawyers?

There is nothing new about this.  XFree86 has code from many sources.
It would be impossible to have a uniform licence covering everything,
even if we wanted to force that on our contributors.

>DD> Equivalence of attribution, as I've stated many times.
>
>Could you please explain what you mean?
>
>XFree86 contains code contributed by the CSG.  You can use that code
>without crediting the CSG outside of the source.
>
>XFree86 contains code contributed by SGI.  You can use that code
>without crediting SGI outside of the source.

No:

[redistribution] ... in executable form, the Notice and a copy of
this License must appear in related documentation or collateral
where the Recipient's rights relating to Covered Code are described.

>XFree86 contains code contributed by the XFree86 project.  You cannot
>use that code, however, unless you credit XFree86 in a user-visible manner.

Several licences require credit in "accompanying documentation,"
sometimes just by reproducing the licence in full in the documentation.
Even FreeType requires something in the documentation whether you
use the GPL or FTL for it.  FreeType is something that you originally
imported.

Read all of the licences at


David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

>> It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I wrote,
>> as it was for Apple or Microsoft.

DD> They still can use your code, because *you* choose the licence for
DD> your code.

And you choose one for yours, and Mark for his?  The situation is
going to become mighty confused.  Are you trying to reduce the
unemployment rate among lawyers?

DD> Equivalence of attribution, as I've stated many times.

Could you please explain what you mean?

XFree86 contains code contributed by the CSG.  You can use that code
without crediting the CSG outside of the source.

XFree86 contains code contributed by SGI.  You can use that code
without crediting SGI outside of the source.

XFree86 contains code contributed by the XFree86 project.  You cannot
use that code, however, unless you credit XFree86 in a user-visible manner.

Juliusz
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:30:35AM +, Aidan Kehoe wrote:
> Ar an 18ú lá de mí 2, scríobh David Dawes :
>
> > Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and its
> > contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of the
> > modified licence is just a poor excuse.
>
>I think it's unfair to assume that, David, especially since there have been
>severl reasoned disagreements with your position from people who have been
>active, useful contributors to XFree86. 

The most reasoned disagreement I've seen so far is "change is bad."

Claiming that the new license fits neither the FSF Free Software definition
or the Open Source Definition when the offending clause is close to that
in the Apache 1.1 licence, and milder than that in the original BSD
license, both of which are both FSF-free and OSI-open, is not a reasoned
disagreement.  It is FUD.

The GPL-compatibility issue is also FUD because XFree86 has always had
code under GPL-incompatible licences.  There are more serious problems
when it comes to strict GPL-compatibility than the modified XFree86
licence.

My point all along has been that the XFree86 licensing policy has not
changed.  If it is bad now, it was bad before.  Why wasn't anyone
complaining before?

>There have been almost no expressions of support for this change, and
>coherent objections from many of those whose contributions matter to the
>project. I'm surprised you're still going ahead with it. 

I can't speak for why the XFree86 board that voted unanimously for the
change, (and some of whom were advocating more radical changes), have
hung me out to dry on this.  I also can't speak for why some developers
have privately supported the change, but won't do so publicly.  But then
taking the heat on things like this comes with the job.  And I have very
thick asbestos undies, but boy do they itch :-)

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 04:19:31PM +0100, Juliusz Chroboczek wrote:
>DD> [XFree86] was not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let
>DD> alone GPL-compatible.  Same after the change.  But then XFree86
>DD> has never factored in those two licensing criteria.
>
>That's not quite the point, David.
>
>Of the many reasons for which I was happy to contribute my work to
>XFree86 was that the old licence guaranteed that anyone could use my
>code.  It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I
>wrote, as it was for Apple or Microsoft.

They still can use your code, because *you* choose the licence for your
code.  Nothing has changed there.

>Unless I've missed a post, you still haven't explained what it is that
>you're trying to achieve with the new licence.  I would like to hear
>you justify that the advantages of the new licence justify what I
>perceive as a net loss in code availability.

Equivalence of attribution, as I've stated many times.  If this was an
irrelevant issue, there would have been no fuss over the licence.  So,
it obviously isn't irrelevant.  This is why XFree86 licensing is now
being evaluated against metrics that weren't used before.  The licensing
of XFree86 as a whole, even the libraries as a whole, didn't meet the
GPL-compatibility or even FSF-free metrics before the change.  Why?
Those metrics were never used to evaluate licence suitability for code
included in XFree86.  To meet those metrics now, code would have to be
removed or rewritten.  If these metrics are as critical as some claim,
then it is probably a good thing that these broader problems have been
exposed.

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Juliusz Chroboczek]

DD> [XFree86] was not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let
DD> alone GPL-compatible.  Same after the change.  But then XFree86
DD> has never factored in those two licensing criteria.

That's not quite the point, David.

Of the many reasons for which I was happy to contribute my work to
XFree86 was that the old licence guaranteed that anyone could use my
code.  It was okay for Debian or FreeBSD to grab a routine that I
wrote, as it was for Apple or Microsoft.

Unless I've missed a post, you still haven't explained what it is that
you're trying to achieve with the new licence.  I would like to hear
you justify that the advantages of the new licence justify what I
perceive as a net loss in code availability.

Juliusz
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Diego Calleja]

El Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:01:13 -0500 David Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió:

> Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
> their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
> issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.

Well, if it really is FUD, the problem will be if *all* the Xfree distributors
(or most of them) stop distributing Xfree, no mather if it's FUD or not. And
it seems that several of them will not distribute X 4.4.

Could someone make a explanatory note of why the new Xfree License is
compatible or not with the GPL license? (for those of us who are not lawyers ;)

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Aidan Kehoe]

 Ar an 18ú lá de mí 2, scríobh David Dawes :

 > Lets face it: Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86 and its
 > contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*) of the
 > modified licence is just a poor excuse.

I think it's unfair to assume that, David, especially since there have been
severl reasoned disagreements with your position from people who have been
active, useful contributors to XFree86. 

There have been almost no expressions of support for this change, and
coherent objections from many of those whose contributions matter to the
project. I'm surprised you're still going ahead with it. 

-- 
I don't care if it rains or freezes/'Long as I got my Plastic Jesus
Riding on the dashboard of my car.
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 09:26:23AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote:
>On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
>> 
>> >Also check the LICENSE document
>> >.  There is a lot
>> >of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
>> >Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
>> >licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
>> >to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
>> >the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
>> >the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
>> >Apache 1.1 licence.
>> >
>> >Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
>> >their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
>> >issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.
>> 
>> So I must totally agree with you David.  People should indeed 
>> go to the definitive sources on open source licensing issues, the 
>> FSF and the OSI.
>> 
>> Interestingly enough, neither the XFree86 license version 1.0, 
>> nor the new 1.1 license are listed as OSI approved open source 
>> licenses:
>> 
>>  http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
>> 
>> Going to the Free Software Foundations site to see their list of 
>> approved free software licenses, the XFree86 license version 1.0 
>> and 1.1 are also noteably missing:
>> 
>>  http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
>> 
>> The FSF does have the following:
>> 
>> "The X11 license.
>> This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
>> compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This 
>> is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is 
>> misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software."
>> 
>> However that statement is inaccurate, as the parts of the 
>> XFree86 source code which are copyright by XFree86.org, are 
>> under either the XFree86 license version 1.0, or XFree86 license 
>> version 1.1.
>> 
>> The simple conclusion, is that XFree86 is not free software, as
>> defined by the Free Software Foundation nor open source software
>> as defined by the Open Source Initiative, however there are a few 
>> inaccuracies present on both of these websites which need to be 
>> fixed, in order to not mislead people into beleiving XFree86 is 
>> MIT/X11 licensed.
>
>I cannot agree with that. The new XFree86 licence is indeed free
>software, at least as far as Debian is concerned, or so Branden told me.
>
>The real problem here is not about the freeness of the licence, but
>about the GPL incompatibility of it, which is problematic for the client
>side libraries.
>
>There seems to be a tentative agreement to not change the licence on
>these client side libraries, but only on the server code, which should
>make any arguments here mostly moot. David, any advancement on this ? 

There won't be any licence changes for the client-side libraries
in 4.4.0.  However, libGL is (and was) problematic from a strict
GPL interpretation point of view, because the licence for the GLX
code (client and server side) is classified as non-free by the FSF.

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
>
>>Also check the LICENSE document
>>.  There is a lot
>>of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
>>Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
>>licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
>>to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
>>the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
>>the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
>>Apache 1.1 licence.
>>
>>Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
>>their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
>>issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.
>
>So I must totally agree with you David.  People should indeed 
>go to the definitive sources on open source licensing issues, the 
>FSF and the OSI.
>
>Interestingly enough, neither the XFree86 license version 1.0, 
>nor the new 1.1 license are listed as OSI approved open source 
>licenses:
>
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
>
>Going to the Free Software Foundations site to see their list of 
>approved free software licenses, the XFree86 license version 1.0 
>and 1.1 are also noteably missing:
>
>   http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
>
>The FSF does have the following:
>
>"The X11 license.
>This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
>compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This 
>is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is 
>misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software."
>
>However that statement is inaccurate, as the parts of the 
>XFree86 source code which are copyright by XFree86.org, are 
>under either the XFree86 license version 1.0, or XFree86 license 
>version 1.1.
>
>The simple conclusion, is that XFree86 is not free software, as
>defined by the Free Software Foundation nor open source software
>as defined by the Open Source Initiative, however there are a few 
>inaccuracies present on both of these websites which need to be 
>fixed, in order to not mislead people into beleiving XFree86 is 
>MIT/X11 licensed.

Well, you came to the right conclusion, even if for the wrong
reasons.  But I figured you'd get to where I wanted you to go, one
way or the other.  It isn't non-free because of the XFree86 licences,
but because of other licences.  If you look at XFree86 as a whole,
you'll find that it hasn't qualified as FSF-free for years -- for
at least as long as the SGI GLX code has been included.  It was
not, as a whole, FSF-free before the change, let alone GPL-compatible.
Same after the change.  But then XFree86 has never factored in
those two licensing criteria.  If you or other distros have policies
against shipping software that isn't FSF-free, you shouldn't have
been shipping XFree86 since at least 4.0.  It isn't the modified
XFree86 licence (compare with the original BSD licence and especially
the Apache 1.1 licence, which are both FSF-free and OSI-open) that
suddenly makes XFree86 as a whole not FSF-free.  It simply hasn't
been in at least 4-5 years, if not longer.

The big deal you are all making about the GPL-incompatibility of
the modified XFree86 licence is really quite minor in comparison.
Lets face it:  Your real objection is to giving credit to XFree86
and its contributors.  GPL-incompatibility and FUD about FSF-freeness(*)
of the modified licence is just a poor excuse.

Anyway, keep researching the various licences and definitions, but
look at the content, and don't be misled by the labels or lack
thereof.  Maybe you'll make it to the next step too...

Enjoy your day.

(*) http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-February/004007.html

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Sven Luther]

On Wed, Feb 18, 2004 at 02:39:01AM -0500, Mike A. Harris wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:
> 
> >Also check the LICENSE document
> >.  There is a lot
> >of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
> >Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
> >licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
> >to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
> >the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
> >the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
> >Apache 1.1 licence.
> >
> >Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
> >their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
> >issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.
> 
> So I must totally agree with you David.  People should indeed 
> go to the definitive sources on open source licensing issues, the 
> FSF and the OSI.
> 
> Interestingly enough, neither the XFree86 license version 1.0, 
> nor the new 1.1 license are listed as OSI approved open source 
> licenses:
> 
>   http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php
> 
> Going to the Free Software Foundations site to see their list of 
> approved free software licenses, the XFree86 license version 1.0 
> and 1.1 are also noteably missing:
> 
>   http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html
> 
> The FSF does have the following:
> 
> "The X11 license.
> This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
> compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This 
> is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is 
> misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software."
> 
> However that statement is inaccurate, as the parts of the 
> XFree86 source code which are copyright by XFree86.org, are 
> under either the XFree86 license version 1.0, or XFree86 license 
> version 1.1.
> 
> The simple conclusion, is that XFree86 is not free software, as
> defined by the Free Software Foundation nor open source software
> as defined by the Open Source Initiative, however there are a few 
> inaccuracies present on both of these websites which need to be 
> fixed, in order to not mislead people into beleiving XFree86 is 
> MIT/X11 licensed.

I cannot agree with that. The new XFree86 licence is indeed free
software, at least as far as Debian is concerned, or so Branden told me.

The real problem here is not about the freeness of the licence, but
about the GPL incompatibility of it, which is problematic for the client
side libraries.

There seems to be a tentative agreement to not change the licence on
these client side libraries, but only on the server code, which should
make any arguments here mostly moot. David, any advancement on this ? 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[Mike A. Harris]

On Tue, 17 Feb 2004, David Dawes wrote:

>Also check the LICENSE document
>.  There is a lot
>of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
>Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
>licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
>to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
>the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
>the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
>Apache 1.1 licence.
>
>Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
>their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
>issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.

So I must totally agree with you David.  People should indeed 
go to the definitive sources on open source licensing issues, the 
FSF and the OSI.

Interestingly enough, neither the XFree86 license version 1.0, 
nor the new 1.1 license are listed as OSI approved open source 
licenses:

http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.php

Going to the Free Software Foundations site to see their list of 
approved free software licenses, the XFree86 license version 1.0 
and 1.1 are also noteably missing:

http://www.fsf.org/licenses/license-list.html

The FSF does have the following:

"The X11 license.
This is a simple, permissive non-copyleft free software license, 
compatible with the GNU GPL. XFree86 uses the same license. This 
is sometimes called the "MIT" license, but that term is 
misleading since MIT has used many licenses for software."

However that statement is inaccurate, as the parts of the 
XFree86 source code which are copyright by XFree86.org, are 
under either the XFree86 license version 1.0, or XFree86 license 
version 1.1.

The simple conclusion, is that XFree86 is not free software, as
defined by the Free Software Foundation nor open source software
as defined by the Open Source Initiative, however there are a few 
inaccuracies present on both of these websites which need to be 
fixed, in order to not mislead people into beleiving XFree86 is 
MIT/X11 licensed.

Of course, others should visit both websites and draw their own 
conclusions also, which will help to cut down on the "FUD" going 
around.


-- 
Mike A. Harris

___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

Re: XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

On Sun, Feb 15, 2004 at 10:45:11PM -0500, David Dawes wrote:
>The third release candidate for XFree86 4.4.0 (aka 4.3.99.903) has
>been tagged.  Source and patches can be found at
>.  The download area at
> will be
>populated over the next few days.  The source is there now, and
>binaries will follow.

Binaries for a range of popular platforms are now available.

The latest documentation for this release can be found at
.  Send any corrections, etc
here.  In particular, check the Release Notes, and send in details of
new stuff that isn't mentioned there, and errors/omissions in the Credits
section.  If you have contributed to XFree86 4.4, make sure your name is
listed!

Also check the LICENSE document
.  There is a lot
of FUD being circulated about the licensing, so check here for the facts.
Also check out the FSF's Free Software definition and their list of
licenses, as well as the OSI's Open Source Definition.  There are links
to these sites from our LICENSE document.  In particular, follow up with
the BSD licences (original and revised), the FreeType License (FTL),
the SGI Free Software License (which applies to GLX and CID), and the
Apache 1.1 licence.

Don't rely on the FUD being circulated by people who can barely hide
their prejudice.  Go straight to the definitive sources on licensing
issues, namely the FSF and the OSI, and come to your own conclusions.

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel

XFree86 4.4.0 RC3

[David Dawes]

The third release candidate for XFree86 4.4.0 (aka 4.3.99.903) has
been tagged.  Source and patches can be found at
.  The download area at
 will be
populated over the next few days.  The source is there now, and
binaries will follow.

If you have any outstanding critical bugs that are not fixed in
this release candidate, or if you find new problems, please send
a note here with details.  The 4.4.0 release is expected to be
finalised by the end of February 2004.

The latest update to our xtest package (version 4.0.6) can be found
at .  For information
about how to build and run it, see the test/xsuite/NOTES.xf86 file.
Build and run scripts are provided to make running xtest a relatively
straightforward process.

David
___
Devel mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://XFree86.Org/mailman/listinfo/devel