My personal opinion:
OpenBSD's conservative approach to its packages in the base system is
beneficial,
since it provides users with a consistent experience and well tested
software.
Yes, it might deter newcomers. On the other hand: Available
documentation which
has been around the internet for years can be used to understand the
latest version
of OpenBSD.
As an experienced user, I could not care less how "outdated" software in
the base system is.
If I want more features, I go to the ports/packages, or download it
directly and compile it myself.
(Or I hack the kernel... But only in emergencies.... )
Thomas
P.S.: MAYBE we are getting Wayland in the near future... I doubt that
FVWM will be a
huge issue then.
On 10/7/25 22:06, David Uhden Collado wrote:
Hello everyone,
I would like to start a discussion about how OpenBSD's copyright
policy applies to GPL-licensed software already present in the base
system. In this email, I will focus on FVWM.
Context summary:
The project's policy is to avoid adding new software licensed under
the GPL to the base system. Components that were already present have
been kept for historical reasons, and they will be replaced with more
permissively licensed alternatives when possible. The default window
manager for Xenocara, FVWM, remains in an old version due to licensing
changes that began with the 2.4.x series. Modern versions are
available in ports. A similar precedent was set with the old
toolchain, GCC, which remained in the base system until the switch to
Clang/LLVM, at least on the main platforms.
Practical issues:
1. Sticking with very old versions means missing out on improvements
and fixes from upstream sources, as well as providing an outdated
experience to new users.
2. Maintenance costs increase with age, requiring ad hoc patching to
build and run with changes in X, new architectures, etc.
3. Shipping an outdated graphical environment when there are current
alternatives in packages causes most users to immediately replace the
window manager after installing OpenBSD.
Concrete proposals to discuss:
A. Remove FVWM from the base system and retain only the window
managers fully aligned with policy, such as cwm and twm, in Xenocara.
Anyone who needs a modern version of FVWM can install it from the
ports collection (fvwm2 or fvwm3).
B. Replace FVWM in the base system with a window manager that is
licensed under a permissive license and is maintained (e.g. JWM). This
would offer a more user-friendly alternative to cwm without
introducing new code licensed under the GPL.
Questions for the list:
1. Do we agree that the base system should avoid "frozen" software?
2. If we remove FVWM from the base system, would you prefer option A,
which leaves only cwm and twm, or option B, which includes a more
user-friendly, permissively licensed window manager?
Best regards,
David.
Notes:
[1]: https://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
