Mark Hatch wrote:
>
> At 09:53 AM 10/4/2000 -0400, Rick Scott wrote:
> > > ><snip>
> > > >
> > > >And talking about free software, OM fails to fullfill terms which
> > > >at least a majority of involved people agree that are required for being
> > > >"free", "opensourced", etc., i.e. many people can't use it _legally_.
> > >
> > > Is there more to this comment about "_legally_" other than the obvious one
> > > that people which have chosen to use GPL for their open software can't use
> > > Open Motif without violating the GPL? I understand that there is a clear
> > > philosophical issue about using a license agreement that has not been
> > > approved by opensouce.org.
> > >
> >
> >It also means that I can't use OpenMotif on any of my comercial platforms for
> >_anything_, no matter what license I may want to use. Some of those platforms
> >do not even have a commercial offering of Motif.
> >
>
> (I know Rick knows this, but for others on the list).)
>
> The OM Public license (unlike the QPL) does allow commercial use as long as
> the platform is an "open sourced" operating system.
Thanks, I didn't know that. That's pretty generous actually.
> So this excludes Sun, HP, etc. (unless they are running Linux or FreeBSD).
I always thought that a policy of "free" for non-commercial, and "pay" for
commercial purposes was a fair balance of interests...
> It also excludes OM on the Cygwin layer on NT. This clause is a real problem.
Will it be changed in the future?
> A more subtle
> implication is that it also excludes OM enhancements from being rolled back
> into "proprietary Motifs" unless the author explicitly dual licenses them.
> This doesn't help unity...
>
For myself (and most others, I think) this isn't really a problem. If I gave
code to a project that was under GPL, or BSD licensing, I (probably) wouldn't
be expecting "compensation" so why would I under other licensing terms?
>
> Mark
>
Kent
