Sorry to do this after the feature freeze, but I just remembered
The XFree86 autoconfig/getconfig stuff is under the non-free X-Oz (same as
XFree86 1.1) licence. This really, really should be removed per our guidelines
for having everything in our tree non-licence-contaminated. This covers the
getconfig stuff, as well as programs/Xserver/hw/xfree86/xf86AutoConfig.c, and
the stuff that calls that from xf86Init.c, et al.
Again, sorry for the inconvenience of doing this so late, but I completely forgot.
Kevin, if you agree with this assessment, please make this bug a release-blocker.
Daniel, could you please point me to the file which includes the non-free
version of the license? I've done everything to pick those versions of the code
that contained the original version of the license (aka XFree86 1.0) which was
checked into XFree86 CVS and therefore has been published.
Saying that code is not under the license it explicitely says it is because it
is copyrighted by a certain individual/company is a very interesting argument
but I'm certain it cannot be upheld in court.
See the URL listed; also:
The original version of the code that was checked into the XFree86 CVS approx.
October 2003 by David. This version still carried the old MIT Style/XFree86. The
license text has
been changed approx. in December 2003 or January this year (if I recall corretly).
I checked rather carefully for the new license text in files when I did the 6.7
release. When I found files with the 1.1 version I replaced it with the last
version prior to the license text change. In case I've missed any file so that
the 1.1 license accidentally infiltrated our code please let me know and I will
figure out what to do.
To complete my point the XFree86 1.1 license text was added to the
xfree86/doc/sgml/LICENSE.sgml file and introduced for the first time
on Dec.12 2003 with version 1.17 of that file.
I don't doubt that you've been thorough, but the allegation here is that the
code was never actually under the XFree86 1.0 licence, but under a totally
different X-Oz licence.
I've asked some Debian legal minds to look it over, and someone on the call (I
forget who - forgive me) said that we could engage a TOG mind free of charge. I
suggest we wait on the outcome of these to see if we have a problem or not.
Again, not to doubt your thoroughness or assessments; it's just that we have to
be paranoid about this kind of thing. :)
OK, I think I've located the problem.
In downloads from the X-Oz site, getconfig-1.0.diff.gz contains the new 1.1
licence, as do all the others. The licences page there lists only the 1.1
archive, and very curiously, web.archive.org knows nothing whatsoever about
I don't know if this change is after-the-fact, or if David decided to commit 1.0
to CVS, but I'm now far, far less sure that we have a problem.
Smoke, but no fire; the confusion arose as per the comment above. This code is OK.
Sorry for all the fuss.