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
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
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
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
rtheless,
there are probably in practice no kernels which conform to this definition
but not to the OSD.
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.
OpenMotif license: http://
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
6 matches
Mail list logo
