xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free Software License B is not DFSG-free

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2003 01:55:47 +0200
From: Henning Makholm <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Non-free licenses in XFree86 package

Package: xfree86
Version: 4.2.1-6
Severity: serious

The following sections of the debian/copyright file for xfree86:

  2.4 GLX Public License
  2.5 CID Font Code Public License

contain clauses which debian-legal has found to be non-free according
to the DFSG - see thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200309/msg00723.html

Code covered by these licenses need to be relicensed or removed from
Debian's distribution of XFree86.

The licence

  "SGI FREE SOFTWARE LICENCE B"

which is found in the copyright file for version 4.2.1-11, also
contains a non-free clause (discussed in the same thread). Since only
the Debian revision differs, I suppose that whatever code that is
covered by will also be present in 4.2.1-6.

Since the BTS wants a version, I give the one curtrently in sarge
(which is where we need most urgently to keep track of
release-critical issues), but the ones in woody and sid, plus the
expermental 4.3.0 packages, all look to be affected too.

--
Henning Makholm "*Vi vil ha wienerbr�

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2003 18:12:54 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: tagging 211764, tagging 211765

tag 211764 - help
tag 211764 - upstream
tag 211765 + help
tag 211765 + upstream

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2003 20:03:30 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: XFree86 RC bug triage

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

# #212322: xserver-xfree86: After security patch (woody1) xfree86 is not in=
stallable for MGA-G550
# Package: xserver-xfree86; Severity: grave; Reported by: Christian Bollige=
r <email address hidden>; Tags: moreinfo, unreproducible, woody.
# can't be RC until it's reproducible, see report
severity 212322 normal

# #190323: xlibmesa3-gl: non-PIC shared in /usr/X11R6/lib/libGL.so.1
# Package: xlibmesa3-gl; Severity: serious; Reported by: Julien LEMOINE <sp=
<email address hidden>>; Tags: fixed-in-experimental, upstream; 157 days old.
retitle 190323 xlibmesa3-gl: non-PIC symbols in libGL.so.1 shared object

# #211765: Non-free licenses in XFree86 package
# Package: xfree86; Severity: serious; Reported by: Henning Makholm <hennin=
<email address hidden>>; Tags: help, upstream; 8 days old.
retitle 211765 xfree86: material under non-free licenses in XFree86

# #210651: libdps1: library not correctly linked
# Package: libdps1; Severity: serious; Reported by: Marco d'Itri <md@Linux.=
IT>; Tags: fixed-in-experimental, pending, sarge; 15 days old.
tag 210651 + upstream

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | Reality is what refuses to go away
Debian GNU/Linux | when I stop believing in it.
<email address hidden> | -- Philip K. Dick
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAj92M2EACgkQ6kxmHytGonymswCfdnjYM+4alv1/Gql3Pkk5Y0r5
uU4AoKWTFtvF7Zlcev9KRdMyk0Sor6d6
=iub+
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--wHh0aNzodMFDTGdO--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2003 21:58:26 -0500
From: Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: Non-free Xfree86 stuff looks like it's all for OpenGL

This appears to be all for OpenGL support, right?

It would be sad to lose OpenGL support in the X Server in 'main', but it
wouldn't be catastrophic.

Do we know who the copyright holders for all of these are, so that they
can be contacted? Are they all SGI copyright (as it appears at first
glance), or is there anyone else?

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2004 03:49:32 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: Nathanael Nerode <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#211765: Non-free Xfree86 stuff looks like it's all for OpenGL

--6Nae48J/T25AfBN4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Tue, Dec 30, 2003 at 09:58:26PM -0500, Nathanael Nerode wrote:
> This appears to be all for OpenGL support, right?
>=20
> It would be sad to lose OpenGL support in the X Server in 'main', but it=
=20
> wouldn't be catastrophic.
>=20
> Do we know who the copyright holders for all of these are, so that they=
=20
> can be contacted? Are they all SGI copyright (as it appears at first=20
> glance), or is there anyone else?

I haven't done much research on this issue yet. I'd very much
appreciate it if you'd be willing to take the lead on this for the time
being.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | One man's "magic" is another man's
Debian GNU/Linux | engineering. "Supernatural" is a
<email address hidden> | null word.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Robert Heinlein

--6Nae48J/T25AfBN4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAj/z3xwACgkQ6kxmHytGonztRgCeMUPoVid3ULpkbB2yiJEWSBU6
uk8AniXmvd3Y3f2w1WT7ms+OG1RnlQMT
=sooE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6Nae48J/T25AfBN4--

Message-Id: <E1AewLN-0004a9-00@cyan>
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2004 23:06:29 +1000
From: Anthony Towns <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: tagging 211765

tags 211765 sarge-ignore

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 15:25:25 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Request for someone to talk to copyright holders

--dMdWWqg3F2Dv/qfw
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Hi guys,
>=20
> Bug#211765, "xfree86: material under non-free licenses in XFree86"
> appears to have been languishing for a few months now, without anyone
> trying to talk to the copyright holders to see if this stuff can be
> relicensed in a DFSG-free fashion.

It's worth noting this bug was tagged "help" about 3 days after it was
filed. Thanks for contributing to my call for assistance.

> Is there someone on this list who's interested in talking to upstream
> copyright holders and trying to work through possible DFSG conflicts
> like these? That usually means either presenting a convincing argument
> that what they want is actually more harmful than it seems in practical
> terms, or that there's some better way of achieving the same goal,
> without running afoul of the DFSG. That's not particularly easy, and
> can often be not particularly fruitful, but promoting free software
> principles to people who're inclined to write non-free licenses is one
> of the things we're meant to be doing.

Indeed; and one unfortunate possibility may be that the copyright
holders would be just as content to see Debian ship this software in the
non-free section.

> So, is there anyone here with the time and energy to look into this issue,
> and ideally others?

I think someone willing to tackle this one would be ideal enough for the
time being, as it doesn't just affect XFree86. Mesa uses much of the
same code.

Particularly valuable in this particular case would probably be someone
who is a known quantity to SGI.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | Never attribute to malice that
Debian GNU/Linux | which can be adequately explained
<email address hidden> | by stupidity.
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- Hanlon's Razor

--dMdWWqg3F2Dv/qfw
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAj//DjUACgkQ6kxmHytGonxzQgCfaX2CEg72+FJCnOLLNCu+QqWe
898AnRIuMYFwshuRbo0/n8DybD2FnN8g
=E1eh
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--dMdWWqg3F2Dv/qfw--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 14:38:45 -0600
From: Steve Langasek <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Cc: <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Request for someone to talk to copyright holders

--RNGrj7vazCqBHNw7
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:25:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Hi guys,

> > Bug#211765, "xfree86: material under non-free licenses in XFree86"
> > appears to have been languishing for a few months now, without anyone
> > trying to talk to the copyright holders to see if this stuff can be
> > relicensed in a DFSG-free fashion.

> It's worth noting this bug was tagged "help" about 3 days after it was
> filed. Thanks for contributing to my call for assistance.

> > So, is there anyone here with the time and energy to look into this iss=
ue,
> > and ideally others?

> I think someone willing to tackle this one would be ideal enough for the
> time being, as it doesn't just affect XFree86. Mesa uses much of the
> same code.

> Particularly valuable in this particular case would probably be someone
> who is a known quantity to SGI.

I'm aware of one developer who is currently an SGI employee; I'll check
with him to see what approach he recommends.

--=20
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

--RNGrj7vazCqBHNw7
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.1 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE//xFVKN6ufymYLloRAs5EAJ0bCVPdcI6eQS85GkI0YIkBlPOlTgCfbZ8z
5sH982226YPyaOGaVJbTtGg=
=tscV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RNGrj7vazCqBHNw7--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 07:56:14 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: Re: Bug#211765: Request for someone to talk to copyright holders

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 02:38:45PM -0600, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 03:25:25PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 11:19:00PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > > So, is there anyone here with the time and energy to look into this i=
ssue,
> > > and ideally others?
[...]
> > Particularly valuable in this particular case would probably be someone
> > who is a known quantity to SGI.
>=20
> I'm aware of one developer who is currently an SGI employee; I'll check
> with him to see what approach he recommends.

Thank you *very* much; please keep the bug number and the -legal mailing
list posted.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | One doesn't have a sense of humor.
Debian GNU/Linux | It has you.
<email address hidden> | -- Larry Gelbart
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkAD6u0ACgkQ6kxmHytGonx+lwCfcPCKiAZwyFdtOL+Vo6QHpyr1
gIMAn34CDD8vov9dvniUPV04Wwst1fil
=CAFU
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--bajzpZikUji1w+G9--

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Fri, 2 Apr 2004 17:22:52 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>, <email address hidden>
Subject: status of this bug

--Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

tag 211765 - help
thanks

I brought this problem to Jim Gettys's attention several weeks ago (in
January); he has been engaged in discussions with SGI since then, and is
seeking a resolution.

For those who don't know, Jim Gettys is an employee of HP Labs, and one of
the "founding fathers" of the X Window System, along with Bob Scheifler
and Keith Packard.

Jim has experience with licensing issues as well, having successfully
negotiated the liberalization of Bitstream's font license on their Vera
faces (now the standard font family for GNOME, as I understand it).

  http://www.hpl.hp.com/features/featured_inventors/Jim_Gettys.html

This issue is in Jim's capable hands, and this bug will be apprised of
further developments.

--=20
G. Branden Robinson | The only way to get rid of a
Debian GNU/Linux | temptation is to yield to it.
<email address hidden> | -- Oscar Wilde
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |

--Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkBt57wACgkQ6kxmHytGonzuvQCePvlL2ke4hdxI+kfMbtopuOp0
T0oAnREz1iSkKQLrafQnaET/BAr827Cg
=jQv6
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--Z0mFw3+mXTC5ycVe--

Message-Id: <email address hidden>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 11:42:00 -0500
From: Branden Robinson <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: retitle 211765 to xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI
 Free Software License B is not DFSG-free ...

# Automatically generated email from bts, devscripts version 2.7.95.1
retitle 211765 xfree86: material under GLX Public License and SGI Free Software License B is not DFSG-free
retitle 242865 xfree86: object code without source violates the DFSG

Warty, like sarge, is going to accept this bug for now

Message-ID: <email address hidden>
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 20:02:54 -0500
From: "Julie English" <email address hidden>
To: <email address hidden>
Subject: it`s julie :)

My name is Julie :)
Most of the time I like to do something I've never done before.. so I decided
to have my first website featuring me (pics and videos). My girlfriends want to join me to on my website. -) Verify your age and connect to my webcam today -)
Come I want to share my life experience with you ;)

http://www.cassidythedog.com/ju18/

you cerium me wedlock me you o'dwyer me agreeable me
you wrestle me divination me you verdant me inexorable me you diem me egan me you dine me icosahedron me

Can this be reopened? It's been several releases.

Why should it be re-opened? XFree86 is no longer supported in Ubuntu, and the xserver-xfree86 package that you find in the repositories is merely a transitional package for Xorg.

Putting back to Confirmed, also affects X.org. Most of the GLX code is either under GLX Public License or SGI Free Software License B, which are both non-free (both non-DFSG-free and non-FSF-free).

In the Hardy release of Ubuntu, this bug seems to affect these packages:

/media/disk/usr/share/doc/xserver-xgl/
/media/disk/usr/share/doc/xserver-xorg-core/
/media/disk/usr/share/doc/xserver-xorg-video-v4l/

I'll start working on this as of today. May take some time, though.

A quick status:

I have contacted Branden Robinson who used to work on this in Debian but still haven't heard from him - he's probably no longer the right person at Debian to contact concerning this problem.

The X.org project has been contacted as to their opinion of the problem and the chances og convincing SGI that they should relicense the code, and this has elicited the following response:

"It's definitely on the list of things that should be remedied at some
point, but I don't know of anyone rewriting the GLX code right now.
We've already managed to get rid of all code under the (rather similar,
IIRC) CID licence, and I think GLX is the only obnoxiously-licensed
piece of code left. Right now, our policy is to only accept MIT/X11 and
non-four-clause-BSD software (or anything with a more liberal license
than that)."
(Daniel Stone, [1])

Regarding a relicensing, Daniel Stone added that the cost for SGI to do so would be "non-trivial":

"Their legal team are going to want to vet every line of both the license
and the code (yes, again). There will be interminable meetings about it
with the legal team and 'all relevant stakeholders', and even these will
have a perceived cost. In the end, it will come down to a lot of money
(some justified, some not), and the legal team and everyone else will
demand a business reason as to why they should spend this money. Also,
they'll want a compelling (to their bottom line, not to a bunch of
bearded people who care about the difference between free software and
open source) reason to change anything at all. " [2]

There was some discussion regarding whom to address in this case since control of OpenGL has passed to the Khronos Group, however there's apparently no doubt that SGO are still the relevant party in this matter:

"SGI still owns and vehemently defends their ownership
and licensing rights of the OpenGL trademark, their code, and their
patents related to OpenGL" [3]

Regarding the priority of this bug within the X.org project, Stone supplied this summary:

"It's definitely on the TODO list, but at the moment we're swamped in
things to fix and actually get working at all (as opposed to working
with a poor license) and have very few developers, so if you could find
someone willing to step up and do this work, things would probably
happen a lot quicker." [4]

CURRENT STATUS:

SGI is unlikely to want to change their license, so if this bug is to be solved, the GLX code in the X.org server (currently 54 source files under the SGI public license and 2 under the GLX public license, i.e. practically everything in the directories GL/glx/ and hw/dmx/glxProxy/) needs to be replaced.

RECOMMENDED COURSE OF ACTION:

A)
Contact SGI at least once more in order to convince them that relicensing this code would be a good idea, for them as well as for all GNU/Linux distributions, since these licenses makes distribution of modified versions of the GLX code legally problematic. Possibly contact the FSF or others to get advice on how to approach them and which legal problems/obstacles may apply.

B)
If this is unsuccessful, estimate the time needed for at rewrite - estimate doesn't need to be very reliable, but ...

On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 08:57 +0000, Carsten Agger wrote:
> A quick status:
>

>
> Regarding a relicensing, Daniel Stone added that the cost for SGI to do
> so would be "non-trivial":

A pity, but not supprising.

> B)
> If this is unsuccessful, estimate the time needed for at rewrite - estimate doesn't need to be very reliable, but are we talking days, weeks, or months? (I should guess weeks, but testing might be a problem - input is welcome). We also need to find if a rewrite e.g. might run afoul of patents.

Would there be problems with a rewrite if its done by people who have
looked at the problem code in question (eg, most of the relevent people
here)? (anyone got a thought?)
kk

> On Thu, 2008-05-08 at 08:57 +0000, Carsten Agger wrote:
>
> Would there be problems with a rewrite if its done by people who have
> looked at the problem code in question (eg, most of the relevent people
> here)? (anyone got a thought?)
> kk
>
>
Not if the new code is obviously not based on the old code. The GNU
project has excellent old guidelines for that.

Point in case should be

1) find out which APIs to implement and which services to offer
2) never ever during the implementation look in or use ideas from SGI's code.

In that case, the rewrite should be safe. Patents is probably a bigger
issue here.

br
Carsten

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NjczMQ
http://www.sgi.com/company_info/newsroom/press_releases/2008/september/opengl.html

Version 1.1 of the FreeB license was replaced by version 2.0, which mirrors the well-known X11 license. Under the terms of version 1.1, "once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the License, Recipient may, for the duration of the License, continue to use it under the terms of that version, or choose to use such Covered Code under the terms of any subsequent version published by SGI."

All old code can now be used under new license. It is now free software.

Yes, that's hugely great news!

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 18:45 +0000, Timo Jyrinki wrote:
> Yes, that's hugely great news!
>
Yes, this is an ideal solution. Kudos to the FSF, and to SGI, for
solving this important problem!

best regards,

Carsten

--
http://www.modspil.dk

This is great news. Bug should be changed to deal only with GLX Public License.

On Fri, 2008-09-19 at 16:01 +0000, Andrius Štikonas wrote:
> Version 1.1 of the FreeB license was replaced by version 2.0, which
> mirrors the well-known X11 license. Under the terms of version 1.1,
> "once Covered Code has been published under a particular version of the
> License, Recipient may, for the duration of the License, continue to use
> it under the terms of that version, or choose to use such Covered Code
> under the terms of any subsequent version published by SGI."
>
> All old code can now be used under new license. It is now free software.

Not until all non-sgi copyright holders agree as well, which i belive
has not happened yet.

This should still be "In progress"

That's incorrect. Version 1.1 says, "SGI may publish revised and/or new versions of the License
from time to time, each with a distinguishing version number. Once Covered Code has been
published under a particular version of the License, Recipient may, for the duration of the
license, continue to use it under the terms of that version, or choose to use such Covered Code
under the terms of any subsequent version published by SGI."

That means /any/ covered 1.1 code (regardless of owner) can now be used under either 1.1. or 2.0. However, the separate GLX Public License remains an issue.

Yes.

The two remaining fles under GLX Public license are these:

GL/glx/glxext.c
hw/dmx/glxProxy/glxext.c

Presumably they will also be relicensed, the question is how - SGI's press release doesn't mention this. I've emailed the FSF asking if they know the details.

br
Carsten

Hello everyone,

As some people here have noticed, SGI's update of the SGI Free License B is a really great contribution to free software, and it does a lot to help resolve this bug. Unfortunately, it's not a complete solution; there are still a few legal loose ends that need to be tied up. I've
written up more about the current state of everything at <http://www.fsf.org/blogs/licensing/2008-09-sgi-announcement>. I'll be working with the relevant people to get the rest of the licensing cleared up. I'll let you know when that happens, so you'll be able to close this bug for good.

If you have any questions about this, please don't hesitate to contact me.

Hello again everyone,

I just got word from the X.Org team that all the developers who worked on the files that were under the GLX Public License have given their permission for their contributions to be used under the new permissive terms. I believe that all the code in X.Org that was originally under an SGI license is now free software. Once the latest stuff gets incorporated into Debian, I think this bug can be closed.

Again, if anyone has any questions about this, please feel free to ask me.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:41:15 -0000
"Brett Smith (FSF)" <email address hidden> wrote:

> Hello again everyone,
>
> I just got word from the X.Org team that all the developers who worked
> on the files that were under the GLX Public License have given their
> permission for their contributions to be used under the new permissive
> terms. I believe that all the code in X.Org that was originally under
> an SGI license is now free software. Once the latest stuff gets
> incorporated into Debian, I think this bug can be closed.
>
> Again, if anyone has any questions about this, please feel free to ask
> me.
>

Hi Brett, thanks for the great news.
I'm wondering if this change takes effect immediately, or if we have to
wait for updated code to hit the archives?

I'm not sure which is correct from your answer.
kk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAkltKXcACgkQhIBzgCf88S5PygCfYcNGcXLB44MQdxngj6AQ5jVj
spcAn3gCt3FKDD0KkOxeA4JDDcLl5N+K
=ozta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 23:53 +0000, KarlGoetz wrote:
> I'm wondering if this change takes effect immediately, or if we have to
> wait for updated code to hit the archives?

Good question. The change is definitely effective immediately for the
code in the git repository as of yesterday -- you don't need to wait for
any updated license headers or anything like that. I believe the
permission is also sufficient to cover the files starting on the day
that SGI made the licensing change back in September, but if it's really
important to you I think you should double-check that with upstream.

Hope this helps,

--
Brett Smith
Licensing Compliance Engineer, Free Software Foundation

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:44:28 -0000
"Brett Smith (FSF)" <email address hidden> wrote:

> On Tue, 2009-01-13 at 23:53 +0000, KarlGoetz wrote:
> > I'm wondering if this change takes effect immediately, or if we
> > have to wait for updated code to hit the archives?
>
> Good question. The change is definitely effective immediately for the
> code in the git repository as of yesterday -- you don't need to wait
> for any updated license headers or anything like that. I believe the
> permission is also sufficient to cover the files starting on the day
> that SGI made the licensing change back in September, but if it's
> really important to you I think you should double-check that with
> upstream.
>
> Hope this helps,
>

It does clarify, thanks.
I guess that means distros will have to ask Xorg about the status of
files shipped in releases before the Sept. announcement (eg, Ubuntu
8.04.x, gNewSense 2.x).
kk
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAklt/9QACgkQhIBzgCf88S6oIACgk05Fa15HKfKuAIGnYsIf497U
m4oAoMOQ+NIb5P1ZOvAg469MQjMgPm3Q
=vfIO
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Just FYI, this bug is now marked as fixed in Debian and gNewSense.