On Thu, 2004-02-26 at 08:52, Paul de Vrieze wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > On Thursday 26 February 2004 14:42, Toby Dickenson wrote: > > The other replies in this thread have discussed compatibility of the > > GPL with the new xfree license, but I'm not sure thats relevant to > > this case. > > > > The xfree license faq http://www.xfree86.org/legal/licenses.html > > states that the new license is not being applied to client-side > > libraries. IMHO GPL compatibility of this new license is only relevant > > for server-side components licensed under the GPL. Does that cover > > anything other than drivers? > > Yes, it covers distributors such as us. It means that we still need to > acknowledge xfree86 if we make any acknowledgement. I could live with a > restriction where xfree86 would require an acknowlegement for any > derivated products which aim for a similar audience, given that that > would not include only distributor-patched versions of xfree.
Toby, Here's a slight addition to what Paul had to say. Perhaps you didn't notice, but I never mentioned anything about client-side libraries. One thing I did mention, however, was GPL drivers. A little more detail from one of my original emails: "If Gentoo distributes a GPL program or driver that can build against any of the XFree86-licensed sources (for example, the SDK), Gentoo probably violates the GPL. If Gentoo distributes a GPL XFree86 driver (for example, x11-misc/synaptics) that can load into this X server, Gentoo probably violates the GPL." Thanks, D -- Donnie Berkholz Gentoo Linux
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
