XFree86 gone from Fedora Core? WHY!?

[William M. Quarles]

Rodolfo J. Paiz wrote:
> At 22:29 5/20/2004, William M. Quarles wrote:
> 
>> The GPL incompatibility is irrelevant.
>> [...]
>> Everything can still be distributed in binary form without violating 
>> anybody's license, since the the 1.1 license does not apply to the 
>> client side libraries.
> 
> 
> I do not understand you. The GPL requires that source be made available 
> to anyone to whom you distribute binary. So how is it in any way 
> relevant that "everything can still be distributed in binary form"?
> 

I think you're being a tad picky with me here.  So let me try my best to 
give a picky response.  I did not say "distributed in *binary-only* 
form."  Your own sentence acknoledges that one can distribute in binary 
form, provided conditions.  Just because I didn't expound upon those 
conditions does not mean that I was ignorant of them.  Fedora Core is 
distributed in binary form, is it not?  OK, then GET OVER IT.  Fedora 
Core source code is made available (somewhat separately, however).

The issue that people seem to be making a fuss about (as best that I can 
understand) is that there are programs that link to X libraries, which 
once you have compiled them, you have created products that are 
derivative elements of software with two different licenses.  If those 
license conflict, that software then cannot be used.  However, since the 
XFree86 Project did not change the license on the client-side libraries, 
which is where the only current conflict with the GPL license exists, as 
  far as I understand, there shouldn't be a problem.  If this is not the 
case, please let me know.

Peace,
William