xlicense

I think this analysis ....

It started when Keith and Jim decided to pressure the XFree86 project on behalf of Linux distributions who felt that the XFree86 project wasn't acting in line with their business plans.

There are companies who make money from bundling up software that they didn't write, yet don't feel that what they've gotten will allow them to compete with Microsoft the way they'd like. After seeing the courses of action that those parties have decided to take, I realized that it would become more and more unlikely that I'd be happy working in such an environment. This is my hobby. I don't do it for any religious or political reasons. When it become for aggravating than fun, it's time to move to another hobby.

i can only collect pointers, so far:

• http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/thread.html

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004328.html

Have you seen anything in common between the distros that are not supporting XFree86 and those that are? Is it just a coincidence that the independently run distros (most of whom are relatively small) have no problem giving due credit? Giving credit is such an onerous task that the little guy can do it, but the big guys can't? What's wrong with this picture?

I'm disappointed that many of the major distros have chosen to discriminate against XFree86 and its licence when they have been shipping other software for years with similar or more onerous licences. Basically, Andrew, the licence is an excuse for the major vendors to switch to something that they can directly control. A switch that was in the works even before we considered our licensing position. We could change the licence back tomorrow and it would make no difference to any of this. But they are businsess, and XFree86 is not. If they cannot exert the level of control they'd like over an existing volunteer project, like XFree86, then they should re-form their own consortium/foundatation/whatever. Just don't believe everything they tell you.

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2004-April/004351.html

Since we're looking at history, we can see that Jim is in the postion he is in because of his lack of vision and lack of confidence in the very technology that he helped create. He abandoned X as a dead technology long ago. He didn't have the vision to see where the burst of activity in the early 1990's that saw the emergence of Linux and other free operating systems would lead. He failed to see that X as a technology could play a pivotal part in these developments. This role was left to others, and was expressed through XFree86, predominantly by volunteers. It wasn't until 1999 when Linux was gaining significant credibility in the business world that Jim realised his mistake, and started publicly bullying the people who had done what he was incapable of, in an attempt to regain control of what he had abandoned as dead.

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/thread.html

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002168.html

http://www.xfree86.org/pipermail/forum/2003-March/002210.html

Most OpenSource projects are led by individuals who have been formally or informally been accepted as leaders for their long standing commitment, their experience and experise. If a formal governing body exists (in many cases because it is require by law) these boards perform purely administrational or political tasks. The gcc steering committee is an example here: It administrates the CVS and Web servers and - as this is a matter for the FSF

• watches over license issues. It consists of the original people who initiated egcs, new members are invited in. Where is the flaw in your proposal? How would a serious developer feel who has worked his butt off if anyone with little to no involvment in his project would be able to elect who is to preside over it - on a one-man one vote basis - with the same voting rights as him? How would this person feel if soemone happened to be elected to take over the leadership who has not written a single line of code for the project, but for example happens to be working for a "System integrator and distributors packaging X technology in various forms"? Do you expect any serious developer would continue to work on this project?