Re: X11 non open-source?

[George Bonser <grep@oriole.sbay.org>]

On Mon, 6 Apr 1998, Micah Yoder wrote:

> Does this mean Linux distribs will have to pay to include XFree86, or
> does it only affect real commercial X servers?  Maybe I'll write him
> back to ask if no one here knows.

The way I read the license, if you sell a software package that includes X
or requires X, you need to buy a license from Open Group.  In other words,
if I wanted to sell Linux and it had X11R6.4 on it, I would have to buy
the license even though I am not, per se, selling X.

If the software that I am selling will only work with X11R6.4 I can not
get around the license by having the customer download X on their own.

Basicly it boils down to this:

X11R6.4 is free to USE but you can not DISTRIBUTE IT FOR MONEY without a
license. You can not distribute a larger package that X is only a
component part of for money without a license from Open Group.  YOU MAY
distribute X11R6.4 provided you do not charge for it.

EXAMPLES:

I make a linux distribution and give it away.  I can include X11R6.4
according to the non-commercial license.

I make a linux distribution that includes X11R6.4 and sell it. I must buy
the $7500 license for the first 50,000 copies I sell.

I use X11R6.4 in my own commercial buisness. I may use X11R6.4 for free
under the non-commercial license because I am not distributing it for
money.

I sell a linux distribution that relies on features found only in X11R6.4
and will not work with XFree86. I must buy the license even if I am not
distributing X proper.  



George Bonser 
Just be thankful that Microsoft does not manufacture pharmaceuticals.
http://www.debian.org
Debian/GNU Linux ... the maintainable operating system.

===
SEUL-Leaders list, seul-leaders-request@seul.org
===