🇳🇱
@drewdevault@fosstodon.org
It literally did, though as pointed out by another commenter it didnt require a complete rewrite only partial, but did require a complet reorg and rename.
I mean I prefer the MIT license personally but I've never felt the need to just invent shit to defend it, much less shit that is quick and easy to look up and identify as bullshit. What's the goal here, I wonder?
Here is a quote from wikipedia basically agreeing with what I said word for word.
> The newer terms are referred to as the XFree86 License 1.1. Many projects relying on XFree86 found the new license unacceptable, and the Free Software Foundation considers it incompatible with the version 2 of the GNU General Public License, though compatible with version 3.
@drewdevault@fosstodon.org
Because that term violated the GPL which could not be changed because the license was viral.
The text from Wikipedia was clear on that I think.
@khm @drewdevault@fosstodon.org
@freemo @khm @drewdevault Right. Sorry, morning brain. It made itself incompatible with the GPL. It was a reason, but it was hardly the only reason. And it's hard to believe Red Hat and other distros - even if they weren't shipping GPL code - would want to wait on express permission anytime they wanted to advertise inclusion of an X window server.
From the X Window System entry:
> However, considerable dissent developed within XFree86. The XFree86 project suffered from a perception of a far too cathedral-like development model; developers could not get CVS commit access and vendors had to maintain extensive patch sets. In March 2003, the XFree86 organization expelled Keith Packard, who had joined XFree86 after the end of the original MIT X Consortium, with considerable ill feeling.
@khm Then maybe you shouldnt do it on my thread where I get notified if you dont want me pointing out youre a moron.
The part you left out of the quote:
> Versions of XFree86 up to and including some release candidates for 4.4.0 were under the MIT License, a permissive, non-copyleft free software license. In February 2004, XFree86 4.4 was released with a change to the XFree86 license, by adding a credit clause,[23] similar to that in the original BSD license,[24] but broader in scope.
The old license wasn't copyleft. Copyleft didn't cause the fork.
@khm @drewdevault
@freemo @khm @drewdevault
Here's the text of the added clause that was the last straw (the last of many other issues):
> Except as contained in this notice, the name of The XFree86 Project, Inc shall not be used in advertising or otherwise to promote the sale, use or other dealings in this Software without prior written authorization from The XFree86 Project, Inc.
How does that relate to copyleft? The GPL doesn't restrict anyone's ability to market the inclusion of GPL software.