dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) (08/30/90)
Once more with feeling. Lots and lots of feeling: A few days ago I announced release 1.1 of OSF/Motif. From email I've had, it is apparent I must repeat the following litany. - No, OSF/Motif source is NOT available by FTP from anywhere. It is a licensed software offering. If you do find it available for free, please call McGruff the crime dog (our lawyers will do). - There is ONE point of contact: "OSF Direct". You can contact OSF Direct at +1(617)621-7300; if you simply want to request documents, including order forms and the like, you can email direct@osf.org (uunet!osf.org!direct). - Existing licensees must execute a new license supplement, available from OSF Direct. In particular, please do not email me with requests. From this point on, any such email I receive will be cheerfully and thoroughly ignored. My posting also pointed to a fuller description on comp.newprod. Now, comp.newprod is a moderated group, and the posting hasn't appeared yet (at least at this site) -- please be patient. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Systems Engineering, OSF uunet!osf.org!dbrooks Experience Hackvergnuegen!
sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) (09/01/90)
In article <1990Aug29.155636@osf.org> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes: >Once more with feeling. Lots and lots of feeling: > >A few days ago I announced release 1.1 of OSF/Motif. From email I've >had, it is apparent I must repeat the following litany. > >- No, OSF/Motif source is NOT available by FTP from anywhere. It is a > licensed software offering. If you do find it available for free, > please call McGruff the crime dog (our lawyers will do). Whether or not you make it available via FTP has *nothing* to do with whether it is licensed (go back to your lawyers for this one). Many people freely distribute software which can only, legally, be used under an executed license agreement. This mechanism is particularly effective if you want to insure the broadest possible usage while insuring that users who will profit from your work share their profits with you. It's too bad, too. The name "Open" Software Foundation is so catchy. Sean McLinden Decision Systems Laboratory University of Pittsburgh
cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) (09/02/90)
Davis Brooks (dbrooks@osf.org) writes: > - No, OSF/Motif source is not available by FTP from anywhere. It is a > licensed software offering. If you do find it available for free, > please call McGruff the crime dog (our lawyers will do). Since Sun Microsystems are willing to give away the source for their "proprietary" XView toolkit (with enough bits and pieces to make a level 1 implementation of OPEN LOOK) I find it inexplicable that the "Open" Software Foundation charge for the source for their GUI tookit (and top this with a per-copy fee for distributing binaries). I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 or, at their option, a later version. As the OSF has made substantial donations to the Free Software Foundation, I presume that they are in favour of free software. Chris Flatters
marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) (09/02/90)
In article <1990Sep1.125921.26895@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) writes: > >Whether or not you make it available via FTP has *nothing* to do with >whether it is licensed (go back to your lawyers for this one). Many people >freely distribute software which can only, legally, be used under an >executed license agreement. > I wish there was a perfect world. I would like to live there, at least for couple weeks ..... -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky marbru@auto-trol.COM (303) 252-2499 {...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404
gsh7w@astsun.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg S. Hennessy) (09/02/90)
Chris Flatters: #I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and #release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 #or, at their option, a later version. Since Sun isn't doing this, why should OSF do it? -- -Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia USPS Mail: Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA Internet: gsh7w@virginia.edu UUCP: ...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (09/02/90)
In article <9009011809.AA08100@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: >I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and >release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 >or, at their option, a later version. As the OSF has made substantial >donations to the Free Software Foundation, I presume that they are in >favour of free software. Before we all get into some inane flame war on this, let me point out that even if OSF desired to do this now, it is very likely that their licensing agreement with the original providers of the base software (HP and DEC) would not allow them to. I don't know this for a fact, but I think it quite likely. Secondly, if they were to license it they certainly wouldn't do so under the GNU license, since that would prohibit software vendors from selling software that used Motif. Something which I don't believe the OSF membership would consider a positive development. -kee -- Alphalpha Software, Inc. | motif-request@alphalpha.com nazgul@alphalpha.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) (09/02/90)
In article <804@auto-trol.UUCP> marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) writes: >In article <1990Sep1.125921.26895@cadre.dsl.pitt.edu> sean@dsl.pitt.edu (Sean McLinden) writes: >> >>Whether or not you make it available via FTP has *nothing* to do with >>whether it is licensed (go back to your lawyers for this one). Many people >>freely distribute software which can only, legally, be used under an >>executed license agreement. >> > I wish there was a perfect world. I would like to live there, > at least for couple weeks ..... > "A journey of a thousand miles begins with but a single step." Finding people (and corporations) to take it is another matter.
cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) (09/03/90)
> Chris Flatters: > #I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and > #release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 > #or, at their option, a later version. > > Since Sun isn't doing this, why should OSF do it? Greg Hennessy has missed the point. What I am trying to say is that OSF should be giving the source to OSF/Motif (a toolkit and window manager) away free of charge. The GNU GPL is simply a way in which they can do this without being unfairly exploited (by unscrupulous vendors charging money for something they got free). I would be perfectly statisfied if the OSF's legal eagles drew up their own license provided that there is free access to the source: I am less concerned about constraining developers who use OSF/Motif to develop applications to distribute their work as free software (this is an aspect of the original GPL that I had forgotten about; however I believe that the relevant clauses of the GNU license have now been rewritten so that applications written using libraries that fall under the GPL do not, now, automatically fall under the GPL themselves). Sun do not use the GNU GPL but they DO give away the source for the XView toolkit and the OPEN LOOK window manager under very generous copyright conditions. This is a big point in favour of the OPEN LOOK user interface. Making the source to OSF/Motif freely available would demonstrate OSF's commitment to open software standards far more convincingly than their current mudslinging campaign against OPEN LOOK. In the meantime their claim that OPEN LOOK is a closed, proprietary standard has a rather hollow ring. Chris Flatters PS. I would also like to see the sources for the OPEN LOOK intrinsics toolkit (OLIT) and a sample version of the OPEN LOOK file manager made freely available.
tale@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (09/03/90)
In <1990Sep2.154929.4599@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley):
Before we all get into some inane flame war on this, [...]
Secondly, if they were to license it they certainly wouldn't do so
under the GNU license, since that would prohibit software vendors
from selling software that used Motif.
You know, inane flame wars begin with just a simple piece of
misinformation.
--
(setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
The most remarkable thing about looking at a picture of myself was the sudden
realisation that my hair is in fact parted on the left and not the right.aledm@estcarp.logitek.co.uk (Aled Morris) (09/03/90)
In article <9009011809.AA08100@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: >I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and >release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 >or, at their option, a later version. As the OSF has made substantial >donations to the Free Software Foundation, I presume that they are in >favour of free software. I agree. Release the code, and no one will even think of using OpenLook ever again. Come on, OSF, this is an opportunity not to be missed! Aled
nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) (09/03/90)
In article <9B{%_8*@rpi.edu> tale@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes: >In <1990Sep2.154929.4599@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley): > > Before we all get into some inane flame war on this, [...] > Secondly, if they were to license it they certainly wouldn't do so > under the GNU license, since that would prohibit software vendors > from selling software that used Motif. > >You know, inane flame wars begin with just a simple piece of >misinformation. Okay, I overstated the problem. A software vendor can sell software that uses copylefted libraries. If however, they ship it in binary form (as opposed to just giving J. Random Secretary the source code) they must also make their source code available and cannot restrict the distribution of said source. E.g. I can sell it to you, but you can give it to everyone else. If this is incorrect please let me know, as this is the number two reason why I am not currently using GNU C++. -kee (Number one is that we ran into too many bugs and support was too expensive.) -- Alphalpha Software, Inc. | motif-request@alphalpha.com nazgul@alphalpha.com |----------------------------------- 617/646-7703 (voice/fax) | Proline BBS: 617/641-3722 I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate everyone else's.
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (09/04/90)
In article <9009011809.AA08100@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: >Since Sun Microsystems are willing to give away the source for their >"proprietary" XView toolkit (with enough bits and pieces to make a level >1 implementation of OPEN LOOK) I find it inexplicable that the "Open" >Software Foundation charge for the source for their GUI tookit (and top >this with a per-copy fee for distributing binaries). > >I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and >release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 >or, at their option, a later version. As the OSF has made substantial >donations to the Free Software Foundation, I presume that they are in >favour of free software. > You are missing the point! OSF is open; at least to Foundation *members*. IBM, HP, DEC, and a whole slew of other companies to numerous to mention established OSF in a veiled attempt to make *their* software the industry standard. Not-free software protects their investment in the standards, development, and distribution of the Motif toolset. Why, because OSF, and its members, don't want Motif in the public domain. There's some legal mumbo-jumbo about "consideration." If you give something away for free, then that's what it's worth, and it becomes hard to protect. Sun, on the other hand, trying to establish OL as a standard, has no consortium to hold it up, and must therefore resort to giving it away, FREE. Sun's not stupid, anyone can look at the widespread enthusiasm that GNU software receives; Sun wants their product to receive widespread acclaim, so, they give it away. Recent comments about the *quality* of Motif 1.1 may give Sun a chance to gain some ground against OSF. May the best product win. Isn't capitalism wonderful. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propeller Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov "So that's what an invisible barrier looks like!"
marbru@auto-trol.UUCP (Martin Brunecky) (09/05/90)
In article <ALEDM.90Sep3161624@estcarp.logitek.co.uk> aledm@estcarp.logitek.co.uk (Aled Morris) writes: >In article <9009011809.AA08100@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@ZIA.AOC.NRAO.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: >>I challenge OSF to put their principles where their publicity is and >>release OSF/Motif under the GNU General Public License, either version 1 .... > >I agree. Release the code, and no one will even think of using >OpenLook ever again. Come on, OSF, this is an opportunity not to be >missed! > (Do you really WANT to SEE the Motif's CODE ??? -) (Do you really WANT to FIX the Motif's CODE ??? -) (Do you really WANT to USE the Motif's CODE ??? -) Now, I am not against making Motif as freely available as possible. But I am not quite sure that posting the source on expo is the best way to do it. Besides many logistics issues, there are also the technical ones. The complexity of this toolkit makes it a headache to really seazoned hackers. Most of the "bugreports" on Motif describe a bug, but very few contain a fix or a workaround. So, rather than making the source free, I'd prefere OSF to WAIVE the "developers license". This $40 per-seat fee you have to pay OSF if your software is shipped in any form that gives the user access to to Motif (say your software uses shareable library that happens to contain Motif). Or $40 paid for "mwm" (though, from the PC world price standpoint this is not a bad price either). -- =*= Opinions presented here are solely of my own and not those of Auto-trol =*= Martin Brunecky marbru@auto-trol.COM (303) 252-2499 {...}ncar!ico!auto-trol!marbru Auto-trol Technology Corp. 12500 North Washington St., Denver, CO 80241-2404
chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson) (09/05/90)
> Before we all get into some inane flame war on this, [...] > Secondly, if they were to license it they certainly wouldn't do so > under the GNU license, since that would prohibit software vendors > from selling software that used Motif. > > You know, inane flame wars begin with just a simple piece of > misinformation. Anyone got a match? Okay, quoting from the GNU Emacs General Public License that appears in my copy of the GNU emacs manual "You may modify your copy or copies of GNU Emacs source code or any portion of it, and copy and distribute such modifications under the terms of Paragraph 1 above, provided that you also do the following: ... - cause the whole of any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is a derivative of GNU Emacs or any part thereof, to be licensed at no charge to all third parties on terms identical to those contained in this Licence agreement..." This would seem to preclude selling a custom widget based on Motif. As far as executables linked with Motif, "For an executable file, complete source code means all the source code for all modules it contains; [excepting system libraries]." I suppose you could get around this by shipping your application as a .o file and then having the consumer link it with the Gnu-ified Motif libraries. If you want free software, write it. I'm all for free software, but the idea of mandatory free software is anti-freedom. Just to keep things in perspective, the cost of a Motif source license is about what a Motif/X11 consultant can get for one day's work. -- Chan
chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson) (09/06/90)
> Sun, on the other hand, trying to establish OL as a standard, has no > consortium to hold it up, and must therefore resort to giving it away, > FREE. So why did we never see FREE implementations of NeWS? Is there a free Xt-based implementation of OL? It seems to me that this would be a bigger draw than XView. XView is very nice for porting SunView applications, but I don't find it attractive for new development. Also while XView is free, it is less than easily portable to non-BSD systems. People with such systems will end up having to pay for XView (and they presumably will not get source). I do not mean to rag on Sun for these inadequacies. I'm just pointing out that comparing XView to Motif is apples to oranges. -- Chan
fgreco@govt.shearson.COM (Frank Greco) (09/06/90)
>I agree. Release the code, and no one will even think of using >OpenLook ever again. Gimme a break. I wouldn't use Motif even if OSF paid me!! Frank G.
kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov (Kaleb Keithley) (09/06/90)
In article <1210042@hpfcmgw.HP.COM> chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson) writes: >> Sun, on the other hand, trying to establish OL as a standard, has no >> consortium to hold it up, and must therefore resort to giving it away, >> FREE. > >So why did we never see FREE implementations of NeWS? > Sun's trying to make OL a standard, not NeWS. Last I heard anyway. -- Kaleb Keithley Jet Propeller Labs kaleb@thyme.jpl.nasa.gov "So that's what an invisible barrier looks like!"