After reading the rants on slashdot, *yes* they are griping about a BSD
style license.  I've read the license, and don't see anything at all
objectionable about it.  It seems like a simple, standard BSD license
(with the "advertising clause").

As near as I can tell, the objection is to placing credits on the
binary distribution.  There is some concern that this is not
compatible with GPLed or LGPLed software being distributed in binary
form.  I do not think that this is an issue for NetBSD, since NetBSD
does not include any GPLed or LGPLed software for X (right?).  (It
might be an issue for binary packages.  I'm not entirely clear that
the GPL/LGPL causes a problem here, since the GPL and LGPL are
long, rambling licenses that I have not read sufficiently closely.
Since I don't use binary packages, I can't comment further on that.)

If binary packages are a problem, there are a few options that come to
mind:

 * Encourage people to use pkgsrc.  (^&  (Though there *are* uses for
   binary packages.)

 * Provide the 4.3 XFree86 libraries for linking [L]GPLed software.

 * Use the December 18 "RC2" snapshot instead of the 4.4 release.
   That has the old license but should be close to the new code.
   That might finesse the problem.

-- 
  "I probably don't know what I'm talking about."  http://www.olib.org/~rkr/