rms@MOLE.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (02/25/91)
We are students at the University of Colorado, Boulder. We are working on
a senior project that requires the use of c++, X Windows, and OSF/Motif.
The Free Software Foundation would like to suggest you reconsider this
idea. Using Motif makes the program unnecessarily dependent on
proprietary software, so that (for example) it would be impossible for
users that have obtained the free X Windows distribution from MIT will
be unable to run it.
In particular, if your program turns out to be a useful tool, the fact
that it uses Motif will make it useless for the GNU project.
So use a free toolkit instead, and write a program that everyone can use.mal@coyote.draper.com (Mark Lamourine) (03/01/91)
John clark writes:
Is there a windowing package out which does the things OPEN LOOK and
MOTIF do based on X and freely available? Or is such stuck because
of the fears of the suites.
Yes, xview, olwm and olgx (Open Look graphics library) are distributed
on the optional X11 distribution tape.
-Mark
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Lamourine, C. S. Draper Lab, Cambridge, MA, 02139, MS 3F
phone: (617) 258-2663 internet: lamourine@draper.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------mal@coyote.draper.com (Mark Lamourine) (03/05/91)
In article <9102242245.AA14675@mole.ai.mit.edu| rms@MOLE.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: |In particular, if your program turns out to be a useful tool, the fact |that it uses Motif will make it useless for the GNU project. Likewise, if you use GNU in your tool, you will make it useless for many people in industry. |So use a free toolkit instead, and write a program that everyone can use. I agree with this suggestion, but wish to point out that FSF software is not "free." If you use FSF software, then you will not have a program that everyone can use. If you want to meet the goals stated in the first reply, you'll need to restrict yourself to using public domain software. OK folks, Enough is enough, alright already? This is help-g++ not alt.flame (or the at least potentially appropriate gnu-misc-discuss). Jim, we've heard you're arguments and their counters repeatedly. If you don't like GNU software (or policies), don't use it, and leave those of us who do in peace. please? - Mark ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mark Lamourine, C. S. Draper Lab, Cambridge, MA, 02139, MS 3F phone: (617) 258-2663 internet: lamourine@draper.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
tiemann@eng.sun.com (Michael Tiemann) (03/06/91)
Jim ADCOCK's problems are not everybody's problems. In the following message, Jim appears to be saying that his personal problems are universal problems. Date: 4 Mar 91 17:10:51 GMT From: microsoft!jimad@uunet.uu.net (Jim ADCOCK) Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA References: <9102242245.AA14675@mole.ai.mit.edu| Sender: help-g++-request@prep.ai.mit.edu In article <9102242245.AA14675@mole.ai.mit.edu| rms@MOLE.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: |In particular, if your program turns out to be a useful tool, the fact |that it uses Motif will make it useless for the GNU project. Likewise, if you use GNU in your tool, you will make it useless for many people in industry. |So use a free toolkit instead, and write a program that everyone can use. I agree with this suggestion, but wish to point out that FSF software is not "free." If you use FSF software, then you will not have a program that everyone can use. If you want to meet the goals stated in the first reply, you'll need to restrict yourself to using public domain software. Since Jim wants to pretend that he is helping maintain the intellectual integrity of this GNU newsgroup (apparently by acting as dietary fiber), may I suggest that he focus more on the truth, and worry less about unsupportable generalations. In particular, he make his message more personal, since he is expressing a personal opinion. To get him started (and to help others who seem to be able to speak only for the world, and not for themselves), here's how it should be rephrased: Poor me. It's so unfortunate that I work at a company where They won't let me do what I want to do. Please pity me because I won't be able to use the GNU software that everybody else enjoys. It's my problem, I have to live with it, and I'm miserable. I hope you wind up as miserable as I am, so you will at least be able to sympathise with me. Boo hoo. Michael
rms@MOLE.AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) (03/13/91)
Rather, if anything, Stallman should post notes pointing out that it
is to *Stallman's* advantage if authors of public domain software were
to publish their software under Stallman's licensing restrictions.
Ordinarily I would not refer to a denunciation as sloppy as this one.
(Those who have better memories than I have might even recall that my
previous message was about a choice of X toolkits, and not about what
terms people might use for the software they write.)
However, it does provide a good example of a mistaken notion that is
commonly offered by those who wish to criticize the GNU project. This
mistake is to equate the success of free software with personal
benefit for me. As if I were making purely selfish requests of people
when I urge them to write free software.
It's true that I get a feeling of satisfaction out of seeing free
software spread. However, if free software provided satisfaction only
to me, no one would pay attention to it, and I would stop doing it.
GNU software is important because it satisfies a large number of
people. Chances are that most of you (being readers of a GNU mailing
list) are among them.
I would not expect very many people to follow my recommendations
purely as a way of making me happy. However, a number of people seem
to appreciate having free software available. Other people appreciate
using GNU software. These people, for their own reasons, might be
interested in the recommendations I make for what will help to promote
free software.