XFree86 gone from Fedora Core? WHY!?

[William M. Quarles]

Cesar Cardoso wrote:
> On Sat, 22 May 2004 19:22:51 -0400, William M. Quarles
> <walrus at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> 
> 
>>I don't want an endless discussion, far from it.  People have put forth
>>that the central issue here for why XFree86 is no longer part of Fedora
>>Core is the license change and some conduct of the now-disbanded core
>>team.  If someone could just answer why the license is GPL incompatible
>>while the modified BSD license is not, that would be enough for me.
>>
> 
> The difference between the original BSD license and the modified BSD
> license is that the modified BSD license doesn't have the advertising
> clause that made the original license incompatible with the GPL (read
> more on http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html). Advertising clauses
> make licenses carrying them incompatible with the GPL.
> 
> That's why the new David Dawes' XFree86 license is incompatible with
> GPL and the modified BSD license is not.
> 

The XFree86 1.1 License does not an "advertising clause," as you say 
that the originaly BSD license has.  That clause (number 3 in XF86 1.1 
to be specific) says nothing about advertising, it is talking about 
retaining an acknowledgement in the binary software and the documentation.

The modified BSD license says something similar 
<http://www.xfree86.org/3.3.6/COPYRIGHT2.html#4>:
"2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright 
notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the 
documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution."

I really don't understand how that does not break
"You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise 
of the rights granted herein," (GPL) nor do I understand how the rest of 
the XFree86 1.1 license does not conflict with GPL given that GPL has 
such a clause.

God, I wish some lawyers used GNU/Linux.

Peace,
William