Re: GPL vs. Motif (was: MaintainerDatabase Copyright)
Bruce Perens wrote:
> It doesn't make any sense for you to distribute the source to Motif with
> your static-linked Motif executable, since the source to Motif is not
> available to you. I'm inclined to consider it an operating-system facility.
> I can take it up with RMS if you wish.
I can only speak for myself and say that it is really weird to receive
a GPL'd binary that I cannot recompile. I don't see how a free
operating system could be said to provide non-free libraries.
Yes, I'm curious what RMS will say. Please contact him if you have
I would also like to mention the bit where the GPL says "If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all."
So it doesn't have to make sense :-)
> Is this worse for unstable? Hopefully some of these can be built with
The descriptions for amaya and jdk1.1-runtime also indicate that they
are linked with Motif.
I cannot find any mention of Motif in the source package for Lyx. I
think Joost mentioned it because it uses xforms, which is another
non-free interface. That puts LyX in the same boat as the Motif
applications, except that as far as I know there's no active cloning
project for xforms. (And LyX really is GPL'd. I don't know about the
Motif-based programs you listed.)
In case you're wondering why I'm concerned about this issue: when I
saw Joost cite these programs as evidence that you don't need to
include the full source to satisfy the GPL, I realised that their
existence is changing people's perceptions of what the GPL means.
The GPL has some specific provisions to allow compilation of free
software for non-free operating systems, but those should not apply to
a free operating system.
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
Trouble? e-mail to firstname.lastname@example.org .