mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) (09/13/89)
> From: inco!mack@uunet.uu.net (Dave Mack) > On to other news. > I just received a phone call from a very nice gentleman at OSF, > explaining that the code chunk I posted as an example of the sort of > thing that was killing mwm is Copyrighted, and that, while OSF is not > suing me, I will be getting a letter from their lawyers. He was most > apologetic about this, but OSF is apparently extremely concerned > about the possibility of Motif accidentally slipping into the public > domain. I knew I wasn't going to actively pursue OSF stuff, but this is ridiculous! I just looked up your message. You quoted: - a comment of about a dozen lines, describing the wire version of something or other, - a #define derived from the above information, - the return value and argument pattern to a function (ie, the external interface - the part that must be documented elsewhere for the function to be useful), - three variable declarations, two with initializations: one utterly trivial, one almost as trivial, - three lines of code: two simple assignments, one augmented assignment. And this is enough to scare the OSF. You will never catch me using anything from this so-called "Open" Software Foundation. I will go out of my way to avoid doing so. (If it comes on the X tape - maybe. But not without a thorough examination for anything that even looks as though it might be different from the standard X copyright.) der Mouse old: mcgill-vision!mouse new: mouse@larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu
steve@UMIACS.UMD.EDU (09/13/89)
[Whoa, Steve, calm down, don't send the flame this started out to be...] If the situation is being accurately represented, then OSF is making a major mistake, and deserves some serious flaming. If Dave Mack is getting beaten up for no more reason than has been described, then I see myself in a situation where I can't post context diffs to Motif sources, for fear of legal retaliation from some droid at OSF. Others will feel the same way. People will stop sending out diffs to Motif. Everyone will have to reinvent the wheel whenever there is a problem to be fixed. People will soon give up, install XView (which has a potential developer base *for the window manager and libraries*, I'm not talking about application code) of several thousand skilled people, and flush Motif entirely. I know what I'm talking about. The lawyers don't. I've seen it happen. Do *you*, OSF, want a bunch of legal types to keep your user interface from winning? I certainly don't want that to happen -- I'd much rather have Motif win than XView, for reasons I've stated previously -- but as stuff like this happens, I find myself saying at night: Steve, you can learn to like OPEN LOOK. Steve, you can learn to like OPEN LOOK. Steve, you can learn to like OPEN LOOK. Can someone from OSF present the OSF side of the story, and/or a public apology to Dave Mack and to the sensibilities of the net, depending on which is appropriate? -Steve P.S: If the OSF lawyers are this jumpy, I feel it necessary to state explicitly that I am speaking for myself, not UMIACS, the University of Maryland, or any other organization. Spoken: Steve Miller Domain: steve@umiacs.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!steve Phone: +1-301-454-1808 USPS: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742
scs@itivax.iti.org (Steve Simmons) (09/13/89)
mouse@LARRY.MCRCIM.MCGILL.EDU (der Mouse) writes: >> From: inco!mack@uunet.uu.net (Dave Mack) >> I just received a phone call from a very nice gentleman at OSF, >> explaining that the code chunk I posted as an example of the sort of >> thing that was killing mwm is Copyrighted, and that, while OSF is not >> suing me, I will be getting a letter from their lawyers. He was most >> apologetic about this, but OSF is apparently extremely concerned >> about the possibility of Motif accidentally slipping into the public >> domain. >I knew I wasn't going to actively pursue OSF stuff, but this is >ridiculous! [[and goes on to describe the original quote as 'trivial', then flames OSF for sending the letter.]] Mouse, while I sympathise with your outrage it is misdirected. The legal system has been twisted to the point that *any* undefended abrogation of copyright is grist for some *ssh*le to try and lever the whole thing into non-copywritten status. OSF is doing what is *has* to in order to defend their copyright. The original poster notes that OSF is being very circumspect and apologetic about it, and he does not seem particularly offended. -- Steve Simmons scs@vax3.iti.org Industrial Technology Institute Ann Arbor, MI. "Velveeta -- the Spam of Cheeses!" -- Uncle Bonsai
vania@osf.ORG (Vania Joloboff) (09/14/89)
This message only expresses personal opinion. It does not commit OSF.
OSF has to find a trade off between:
1) If OSF allows people to communicate MOTIF code on the net,
someone could finally collect all the code without any license,
and then claim the whole thing is public domain.
2) On the other hand, OSF does not want to prevent technical
discussions on the net and collection of bug fixes.
3) There exists for MOTIF licensees a mailing list, named motif-talk,
handled by OSF. Probably, the OSF lawyers have thought that discussion
should be confined to that mailing list: if you have a MOTIF problem,
it seems you want to talk to other motif users, who are on motif-talk,
and that talking to xpert would not bring much to you.
Actually, someone complained recently on xpert, that it was not
the place for MOTIF discussion.
My personal feeling is that OSF should allow MOTIF 'fragments' to be
publicly exposed, as far as the appropriate MOTIF Copyright and rights
of use would be totally reproduced in the messsage.
The question then is what is a 'fragment' ?
Should it be limited to at most one C function, one file,
a fixed number of lines ?
Vania Joloboffcsu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) (09/16/89)
In article <8909131235.AA13992@fnord.umiacs.UMD.EDU> steve@UMIACS.UMD.EDU writes: > If the situation is being accurately represented, then OSF is making a >major mistake, and deserves some serious flaming. > > If Dave Mack is getting beaten up for no more reason than has been >described, Whoa there. I'm the Dave Mack in question and as far as I know, no copyright death squads are hunting me. They said they're going to send me a letter. I'll probably survive it, unless they meant letterbomb. I think you have excessive expectations regarding what the Open Software Foundation is all about. The OSF products are "open" to OSF members. You plunk down your twenty-five grand for membership, then you're entitled to buy the Motif source for a grand, and presumably use it in your products. (I haven't read the OSF License Agreement - I hope someone from OSF will correct me if I'm wrong.) I understand that binary copies are available for fifty bucks or thereabouts, although I don't know if you have to be an OSF member to get those also. > then I see myself in a situation where I can't post context diffs >to Motif sources, for fear of legal retaliation from some droid at OSF. While the conversation I had did not deal with context diffs, the warning I got strongly suggests that posting diffs would not be appreciated by the OSF legal staff. The gentleman I spoke to gave me e-mail addresses for some mailing lists specifically for the transmission of bug reports and patches. I'm slightly hesitant to post the addresses - send e-mail if you want them. > Can someone from OSF present the OSF side of the story, and/or a public >apology to Dave Mack and to the sensibilities of the net, depending on which >is appropriate? Dave Mack neither wants nor requires a public apology. Please get it straight, folks: Motif is the intellectual property of the OSF. It is not public domain. They're within their rights in asking me not to post pieces of their code. We've come to take the ability to do that for granted, particularly in the case of the BSD source and all the public domain stuff we've become accustomed to, but this is a different ball game. I appreciate the support from those who have posted, but there are more important issues to get worked up about. Let's keep this in perspective, OK? Thanks, Dave Mack
dbrooks@osf.osf.org (David Brooks) (09/16/89)
I wasn't going to react in public to all this, preferring to let it work itself out (also, I prefer to coordinate with my colleagues before posting, and it's now Saturday), but the referenced article needs one particular immediate correction. (I diffidently apologize for excessive diffidence). In article <1989Sep16.054622.21479@alembic.acs.com> csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: [...] (during, mostly, a factually correct and well-balanced description of our process) >I think you have excessive expectations regarding what the Open Software >Foundation is all about. The OSF products are "open" to OSF members. You >plunk down your twenty-five grand for membership, then you're entitled >to buy the Motif source for a grand, and presumably use it in your products. Source is available to *anyone*, as of last July 21. >(I haven't read the OSF License Agreement - I hope someone from OSF will >correct me if I'm wrong.) I understand that binary copies are available >for fifty bucks or thereabouts, although I don't know if you have to be >an OSF member to get those also. Binaries, which will allow you to build Motif applications without Motif source, will come from your favorite platform vendor or independent software vendor. >While the conversation I had did not deal with context diffs, the warning >I got strongly suggests that posting diffs would not be appreciated by >the OSF legal staff. The gentleman I spoke to gave me e-mail addresses >for some mailing lists specifically for the transmission of bug reports >and patches. I'm slightly hesitant to post the addresses - send e-mail >if you want them. As noted, anyone with a source license has source *and* access to our support mailing lists; we handle support both by phone and electronically. Diffs have, in fact, been a significant component of such lists during the open development process and have been of help to improve the quality of Motif. If you have a license, you have access to the lists; if you don't, you don't need it. What I'm trying to say, gently, is: please don't ask Dave Mack for the lists. (Unless, of course, you have one of the many bootleg copies out there :-) btw, it was due to such interaction with early licensees that the original problem posted by Dave was addressed several moons ago. -- David Brooks dbrooks@osf.org Open Software Foundation uunet!osf.org!dbrooks 11 Cambridge Center (My views, and OSF's, though I didn't Cambridge, MA 02142, USA actually show this to my boss) "Is this heaven?" "No, it's Massachusetts." -- Field of Dreams (paraphrase)
ron@xwind.UUCP (Ronald P. Hughes) (09/17/89)
In article <1989Sep16.054622.21479@alembic.acs.com>, csu@alembic.acs.com (Dave Mack) writes: > The OSF products are "open" to OSF members. You > plunk down your twenty-five grand for membership, then you're entitled > to buy the Motif source for a grand, and presumably use it in your products. > (I haven't read the OSF License Agreement - I hope someone from OSF will > correct me if I'm wrong.) I understand that binary copies are available > for fifty bucks or thereabouts, although I don't know if you have to be > an OSF member to get those also. You don't have to be an OSF member to obtain Motif sources. The price is $1000.00, member or nonmember. CrossWind Technologies, Inc. has the distinction of being the first nonmember Motif customer. OSF expects to receive $40.00 (quantity 1, with discounts for volume) royalty per binary copy of Motif shipped by someone else. The price charged to the end user by that "someone else" could range from zero to hundreds of dollars. For instance, a platform manufacturer selling a hunk of iron for $10,000 might just bundle in Motif "for free" and pay OSF their due. But a software vendor, selling and supporting Motif binaries as part of their product line, might charge a customer $500.00 and provide training, printed documentation, installation assistance, etc., and of course pay OSF their $40.00. The Motif binaries I'm referring to include the toolkit (lots of .o object files in a bunch of .a libraries) and the Motif Window Manager (mwm). OSF does not charge any royalties for end-user applications built using Motif (such as Synchronize(tm), a new multi-user calendaring program with an easy-to-use graphics interface that allows technical and nontechnical users to easily schedule meetings without conflicts, maintain prioritized to-do lists, add popup notes (such as meeting agendas), and so forth, which is going to be shipped soon to select beta sites and will be available on YOUR favorite X platform before the end of the year) [A marketeer made me type all that]. As far as posting diffs are concerned, OSF maintains mailing lists to which Motif source licencees (both members and nonmembers) can be added. All mail sent to these mailing lists (including diffs) can be received by everyone with a (legal) copy of the Motif source. Since these mailing lists exist, it just doesn't make sense to post diffs to public newsgroups. It chews up net bandwidth, since presumably those without Motif source won't be that interested in Motif source diffs, and it makes OSF's lawyers itch. Speaking of OSF's lawyers, all of the above is just my opinion. Contact OSF for the real facts. Ronald P. Hughes ron@xwind.com (or ...!uunet!xwind!ron) CrossWind Technologies, Inc. (408)335-4988
bzs@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Barry Shein) (09/17/89)
>Mouse, while I sympathise with your outrage it is misdirected. The >legal system has been twisted to the point that *any* undefended abrogation >of copyright is grist for some *ssh*le to try and lever the whole thing >into non-copywritten status. OSF is doing what is *has* to in order to >defend their copyright. The original poster notes that OSF is being >very circumspect and apologetic about it, and he does not seem particularly >offended. What's really looney-tunes is that I know *I* wouldn't want to be in court defending a copyright on the basis that I have warned all potential violators when it's public knowledge that I sent those warnings out with a big wink of the eye that the sword I'm rattling is made of rubber (all other metaphors void where prohibited by law)! If the OSF wanted to do something truly constructive for their members and the rest of the world they'd be funding a bunch of legal types and lobbyists to undo the current rat's nest which hovers around copyright etc. issues. Hopefully in a productive way. The current legal status is nothing more (or less) than a full employment act for lawyers. What good is producing software if no one can agree on what constitutes ownership, safe "free" distribution, etc.? It's like farming land you might be trespassing on or have no rights to harvest from. Whacko stuff. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die, Purveyors to the Trade 1330 Beacon Street, Brookline, MA 02146, (617) 739-0202 Internet: bzs@skuld.std.com UUCP: encore!xylogics!skuld!bzs or uunet!skuld!bzs
steve@UMIACS.UMD.EDU (09/18/89)
I know about OSF membership. I was one of the people here who suggested that we (sound of switching hats from UMIACS to the CS Department) join. We've been members since March-ish. (It's worth noting in passing that academic memberships don't cost $25K. They're more like $5K or less, though I no longer remember the exact figure.) I also know what has to be done to get Motif source. My comments, past and present, about Motif source availability are known. If there is a list for Motif fixes, and if *everyone* on that list sees *all* the fixes that are sent to that list (i.e., it's not just a bugfix repository like sunbugs@sun.com or 4bsd-bugs@okeeffe.berkeley.edu), that will mostly solve the problem of access to fixes. My only fear in this case is that the readership still isn't wide enough. For example, would I be allowed on the Motif bugfix list, even though I'm not listed as the official technical contact for UMCP CSD's membership with OSF? The issue of disallowing the posting of Motif diffs to public lists or newsgroups still strikes me (in the absence of further information; I'd like OSF to speak up and clarify) as unnecessarily paranoid, and perhaps downright fascist. I agree with Barry Shein's suggestion -- perhaps if OSF wants to flex legal muscles, it should try to clean up the copyright laws, rather than giving in to them. Stupid laws deserve to be struck down. Now back to your regularly scheduled technical discussion... -Steve (mouthing off for myself again, and not for any of the organizations I might work for or deal with) Spoken: Steve Miller Domain: steve@umiacs.umd.edu UUCP: uunet!mimsy!steve Phone: +1-301-454-1808 USPS: UMIACS, Univ. of Maryland, College Park, MD 20742