Re: RMS on OpenMotif
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 have relevance here, since we're talking about free operating systems, none of which are Unix(tm). Yes, they work the same, but no, they're not Unix(tm). Since clearly Motif runs on them, Motif runs on more than Unix, so Unix definitions are insufficiently broad. Aren't there versions of Motif that run under Windows, too? We can argue this all day (I've gotten into arguments about definitions before, too, so I *know* we can argue this all day). My point is that we *can* argue it, and we can both make reasonable arguments, at which it comes down to with which a judge agrees. Don't leave it up to the lawyers and judges and jurors involved in a particular case -- just define the terms. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
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 Motif license. The OpenMotif licensing FAQ clarifies that the reference is to the *kernel* of the operating system only, without regard to bundled utility programs. All known Linux and BSD distros clearly meet this requirement. Although the FAQ is not part of the license, it definitely goes to show the licensor's intent. The FAQ is not part of the license; it's not a legal document, but commentary upon the legal document. Much as the hyperlinked explanations of the NPL had no legal weight, the FAQ doesn't either. Someone might want to make a snapshot of the FAQ as it currently stands, in case it becomes necessary in a court test which hinges on the interpretation of the license. 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 kernel, to the DLLs of IE, to the IE app itself -- rather than according to random documents. IANAL, of course, but Judge Kaplan used the Microsoft vs. US case's definition of operating system in the DeCSS case, and it seems reasonable that such a high-profile case would be widely used for precedent. Matthew Weigel Programmer/Student [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
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 licensing FAQ clarifies that the reference is to the *kernel* of the operating system only, without regard to bundled utility programs. In that case, they should change the license and say so explicitly. (Though this is just a side issue.) Their definition of the term "open source" is very different from the one used by the Open Source Movement, thus causing confusion. Similarly, the FAQ explicitly states an intent to conform to the OSD. The problem is that they are using the term "open source" with their own private (lax) definition. Good intentions don't make the problem go away. Using a different term for their meaning would make THIS problem go away. Given the other problems, though, hair-splitting about this one doesn't seem especially useful.
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
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 kernel, to the DLLs of IE, to the IE app itself -- rather than according to random documents. It is also equally valid to use the English dictionary and the context in which the precedent was made. In the Caldera suit, the whole point of the suer was to show that Windows95 as a whole was not the operating system, but just the underlying DOS. The MS v US case used the term in an entirely different context. My dictionary defines "operating system" as: "software that controls the operation of a computer and directs the processing of programs". The kernel and a few bits of infrastructure around it are sufficient to meet this definition. But even if you have to use the common usage of the term, the common usage 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. -- David Johnson _ http://www.usermode.org
Re: RMS on OpenMotif
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, and shrink-wrap licenses are a bad thing. I agree with this, except that I think (without some statutory confirmation of the legitimacy of such licenses) that the reference to use is vacuous and unenforceable here. (Of course IANAL.) Agreed; though unenforceable clauses generally have no bearing on OSD conformance by themselves, unless they specifically contravene the OSD. It's within the right of OSI to approve licenses but also include additional commentary, for instance stating that this would be an unenforceable provision. The license is restricted to use on certain operating systems, those which fit a category they call "open source". Both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement consider use restrictions unacceptable. Stallman is correct here, we would not approve such a license. Their definition of the term "open source" is very different from the one used by the Open Source Movement, thus causing confusion. Similarly, the FAQ explicitly states an intent to conform to the OSD. Yep, we've notified the OpenGroup about this, and received no response. Brian
