On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> will not be defined by the Windows98 user, but by the typical user of
> Unix (since that is the platform for Motif), who would have a radically
> different perception of what an OS is.
If you're going to get into legal terms, then no, Unix does not hav
On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, you wrote:
> For terms not defined in the license (such as "operating system"), it would
> be easy for whoever brought the lawsuit to argue that using the term
> according to precedent -- i.e., as in the Microsoft vs. US case, which would
> be everything on the CD from the ke
> Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
> distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
> unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
> in the Motif license.
The OpenMotif l
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> > Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
> > distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
> > unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
> > in the Moti
On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> RMS writes (copied here under a claim of fair use):
>
> > Here are some of the problems of the Motif license:
> >
> > It claims that you accept the license merely by "using" Motif. Only
> > a shrink-wrap license or something similar can do that,
I believe there is no reasonable dispute that OpenMotif, a licensed
version of Motif for use with open-source systems, is not itself
open source: it clearly steps on criteria 1, 8, and 9 of the OSD,
as the Open Group themselves concede. RMS believes it is not free software,
either, and I think he
6 matches
Mail list logo
