Re: [Dri-devel] Status of XFree86 4.4.0 integration?

[David D. <dawes@XFree86.Org>]

On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 07:43:51PM -0700, ke...@tu... wrote:
>> On Mon, Mar 01, 2004 at 06:44:38PM +0000, Alan Cox wrote:
>>>On Llu, 2004-03-01 at 14:34, Adam K Kirchhoff wrote:
>>>> The client libraries are still distributed under the old license, so
>>>> there is no problem linking GPLed libraries or apps to the 4.4
>>>> libraries.  Which means there is no longer a reason for those
>>>> distributions not to include 4.4 any more.
>>>
>>>There are several reasons, including for example the X Vnc servers
>>> which also use GPL code in the server
>>
>> The GLX licence is problematic for this also, given that it is used in
>> the server.  Both the freedesktop.org and x.org trees also
>> included this problematic GLX code last I checked.  I think it
>> would be good all around if each of these projects, including the
>> DRI project, made a clear licensing policy statement.  As everyone
>> should know by now, you can't be a little bit GPL-incompatible.
>> Either you are or you aren't.
>>
>
>It's certainly a can of worms.  I'm not particularly interested in the
>subtle differences between licenses, but I can say that the GLX-licenced
>code doesn't have much to do with the DRI project in particular - I
>believe it came directly from SGI and their license has been maintained
>since then.   All the changes from this project (to my knowledge) have
>been intended to fall under a license comparable to the older, previous,
>uncontentious XFree86 one.  If there are issues with the continued use of
>the GLX code, the first step would be to approach SGI and request a change
>of license.  I've no idea if this would be succesful or not.  I've also no
>idea if it is necessary or not.  I'll leave this up to others with more
>interest in licenses than I have.
>
>There was an independently-developed GLX implementation (Utah-GLX).  If
>worst came to worst, that could be revived.  I'm not at all convinced this
>is the case or will become the case.
>
>I'd like someone to convince me there was a problem before any actual
>steps are taken.

It matters mostly if GPL-compatibility of the X server code is a
concern.  Given how the strict interpretation of the GPL works,
you only need one piece of non-compatible code in a program for
the whole to be non-compatible.  Also with the strict interpretation,
no GPL'd application could link with a libGL that included
GPL-incompatible code.  I happen to disagree with the ideas behind
the GPL's definition of derivative works, but that's neither here
nor there.  I would expect all of this to be a non-issue for the
DRI Project, particularly given that binary-only drivers or driver
components from vendors present exactly the same issues when it comes
to the X server and GL apps.

Obviously GPL-compatibility of the X server code is also a non-issue
as far as I am concerned.  I'm just pointing out that if the new
XFree86 licence is considered problematic because it makes the X
server GPL-incompatible, then SGI's GLX licence is also problematic
for the same reason.

I'm personally more concerned that SGI's GLX licence doesn't meet
the FSF's Free Software definition, but that is something that I
intend to follow up elsewhere.

If all of this licence stuff makes you feel nauseous, then I know
how you feel...

David