dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) (04/12/90)
In article <9004100445.AA25496@antares.aero.org>, strauss@AEROSPACE.AERO.ORG writes: > > Motif is not free. The members of the Open Software Foundation sell it > as a product. In article <90Apr12.013507edt.3571@smoke.cs.toronto.edu>, moraes@cs.toronto.edu (Mark Moraes) writes: > > I quite understand that OSF has to charge money for their source > licenses. Membership has its privileges. If not, what would be the > point of being a member. It must be time to say this again: Being a member is not a prerequisite of licensing OSF/Motif source. From its first release in August 1989, it was available on equal terms to members and non-members alike. The number of non-member licensees (which includes some interesting names :-) far outweighs the number of members. And many of the licensees won't be selling it as a (binary) product, but are using it internally. Membership does have its privileges, but that's not one of them. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson) (04/13/90)
> I'm not for everything being freely available, but programmer's > toolkits that support an interface that you're trying to make a > standard so that people will buy your product over someone else's (ie > Motif for OSF/1 vs Open Look for Sun/AT&T) are probably a good idea to > write off (ie give away for free). Hmmmm. Why does the phrase "trying to make a standard so that people will buy your product over someone else's" strike me as rather absurd? Let's see, how freely available was SunView source? What Unix windowing system probably supports the largest number of applications? -- Chan
dacseg@uts.amdahl.com (Scott E. Garfinkle) (04/14/90)
From article <1210031@hpfcmgw.HP.COM>, by chan@hpfcmgw.HP.COM (Chan Benson): >> I'm not for everything being freely available, but programmer's >> toolkits that support an interface that you're trying to make a >> standard so that people will buy your product over someone else's (ie >> Motif for OSF/1 vs Open Look for Sun/AT&T) are probably a good idea to >> write off (ie give away for free). > > Hmmmm. Why does the phrase "trying to make a standard so that people will > buy your product over someone else's" strike me as rather absurd? It may not be the most elegant possible English, but the sentiment is right on target. I find it hard to believe that the committment by various companies to all kinds of competinging "open" "standards" (two distinct buzz-words) is in any way altruistic. OSF (including HP) wants Motif to succeed so that the members can sell more of their frammistans (widgets? :-)). > Let's see, how freely available was SunView source? What Unix windowing > system probably supports the largest number of applications? A useless comparison. Sun did not *need* to give away source. Sunview is only popular on Suns; ic it's "the most popular", it only because there are a lot of suns around. I, personally, would be happy to be using Motif on my 386 Unix boxes; however, I will continue to use Athena Widgets until I get a decent generally-available toolkit. It looks to me like openlook will probably get there first. -Scott E. Garfinkle Disclaimer: I not only don't speak for Amdahl, I don't even work for them.