Revisiting the license unification idea

Daniel Drake ddrake at
Mon Oct 8 13:28:54 PDT 2007

Daniel Stone wrote:
> Unfortunately, we're extremely unlikely to get anything along these
> lines from HP[0]/TOG (core code), SGI (XKB), et al.  There are a few
> friendly vendors who would co-operate, but we're still left with
> enormous swathes of the DIX holding the old license.
> It'd be nice to get a legal opinion on a change of this clause to
> something far more like GPL section 1 ('don't remove anything from the
> source'), but I don't know who I'd want to ask there.  SFLC?

Where do we stand on this? Are you still considering modifying our 
proposed 'official license' to make life easier for binary distributors 
(even given that some big contributors will not change to it). Have you 
contacted the X.Org foundation board on any of these topics?

If we do go for the modified license as the recommendation, much of the 
process I detailed in my first mail will still be needed for those who 
do not use it.

Here's one possible wording for the 2nd paragraph to incorporate this:

For source redistribution, the above copyright notice and this 
permission notice (including the next paragraph) shall be included in 
all copies or substantial portions of the Software. For binary 
redistribution, attribution is appreciated but not required.

I'm neutral on which license form we should use. A modified version (to 
make binary redistribution easier) would be great, but involves legal 
work etc, and we still have huge amounts of code not under that license 
for binary distributors to worry about.
An unmodified version might make the process go quicker but I still have 
a lot of work to do and license-compliant binary distribution is still a 

Daniel Drake
Brontes Technologies, A 3M Company

More information about the xorg mailing list