Licenses and Distribution (WAS Re: XFree-4.4.0)

Matthias Benkmann msbREMOVE-THIS at
Fri Mar 12 12:57:07 PST 2004

On Fri, 12 Mar 2004 13:44:42 -0500 "Michael T. Dean"
<mtdean at> wrote:

> So what about just educating the user?  We could (tastefully) mention 
> that there was a license change with XFree86 4.4.0,

No. Let's not open this can of worms. The (B)LFS book is not an
open-source forum. It is not an appropriate place for rants or criticism
of licensing or other politics. XFree86 is not the only package whose
license is under criticism. If we point to the XFree86 licensing
discussions we will also have to point to the Java discussion started by
ESR (which I consider a lot more interesting and important). 

Where does it stop?

What about the fundamental philosophical differences between BSD licenses
and the GPL? These are FAR MORE significant and deep than the XFree86
licensing change. We could devote WHOLE CHAPTERS to this issue.

A lot of things are worthy of discussion in the world of open-source, but
the (B)LFS book is not the place for most of these. LFS is not Slashdot.
We cannot link to each and every issue no matter how important and
interesting it may be.


Yes, I'm paranoid. That doesn't mean they're not out to get me.

More information about the blfs-dev mailing list