Richard,
On Thu, 2 Jul 2009, Richard L. Hamilton wrote:
> If the folks that maintain the OS distro say that the (possibly crippled
> or divergent - for example, the XmPrint* functions are missing) version
> they supply doesn't do something, it probably doesn't.
>
> Please prove otherwise or _drop it_. You're not helping.
Actually, I understand your good intention, but it is you who is not
helping by introducing a straw man argument. No one has made the
assertions about XmPrint* functions you claim. They have made other
false, disparaging factual assertions:
1) That Motif is not compliant with section 508 of the Rehabilitation
Act. Motif is compliant with sectio 508 requirements and the people
making that claim are aware they are making false factual statements
because they cited the IST compliance statement and made additional
false factual claims.
2) That Motif has been abandoned, has no support, and 'is a dead
project'. This is also a false factual claim, as shown by the existance
of the ICS and IST companies providing support services. Similarly, the
people making the claim know of these companies, and therefore know
their factual statements are false.
The dispute is about those two issues. Sun is responsible for the
statements of its employees and volunteer employees, and has shown no
supervision and no regard for the truth of the disparaging false
statements made against TOG's Motif product, ICS' services, and IST's
services. I have forwarded the messages to the appropriate counsel. It
is out of my hands. It is out of your hands, too.
> The only job I see for lawyers is for someone to decide if OpenMotif's
> not-quite-open license allows it to be used on OpenSolaris, in which
> case,
Hmm. Perhaps I should explain a bit.
The Motif license is open--and very similar to the BSD license. The
difference is that BSD license doesn't protect the code against use by
closed-source operating systems. Close-source products should not
unfairly profit from open-source projects.
The OpenMotif license has a clause that it can be used for free only on
open source operating systems. BSD and OpenMotif licenses can be
criticized from a GPL perspective because they still allow a path for
free code to be closed again. But that isn't the criticism here.
Instead, there is complaint that they can't use Motif for free on their
closed-source system. I am always amused (Stallman also has no
sympathy, either) when closed-source people complain about how the GPL
or open source licenses prevent their closed-source systems from
importing and profiting from open-source code. Not that either of us
are against profit, but it is unfair to use open-source code freely,
obtain profits, and not share the benefits of their closed-source code.
The only problem for using the OpenMotif license on Solaris was that
Solaris, until recently, wasn't itself open source. So Solaris couldn't
avail itself of the free OpenMotif license, but had to pay for a
license. Solaris people have complained about this (they had to keep
paying royalties), but Sun finally open-sourced Solaris. I'm sure the
Motif royalties weren't their only motiviation, but I still call that a
victory for open-source. I encourage more people to use licenses that
benefit open-source and prevent closed-source systems from benefiting
unfairly from open-source projects. GPL and LGPL are the best in my
opinion, but if one is really set on the BSD style license, I strongly
encourage them to put in a clause that allows free use only on open
source operating systems. I think it clearly has an effect, and would
have a greater impact if more BSD-licensed projects did this.
--Dean
--
Av8 Internet Prepared to pay a premium for better service?
www.av8.net faster, more reliable, better service
617 344 9000
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-code mailing list
opensolaris-code@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/opensolaris-code
