Revisiting the license unification idea

Daniel Stone daniel at
Mon Oct 8 13:40:19 PDT 2007

On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:28:54PM +0100, Daniel Drake wrote:
> 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?

I contacted the board about this a little while ago, and we're seeking
advice from the SFLC on whether to just remove the paragraph entirely,
or reword it.

> 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 
> pain.

I suspect that, either way, the recommendation will be to go with a
modified version.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <>

More information about the xorg mailing list