Re: Proposal: Motif Widget set
On Sat, 20 May 2000, Julie wrote:
> Ignoring the philosophical bent of any one distribution (such
> as Debian's "we don't use it if it doesn't fit our private
> definition of ``free''), is there a =legal= reason that Motif
Who knows? Can you define what the Open Group meant by an open source
operating system? We include Netscape with Red Hat, so is that an open
source OS? Others include binary sound drivers for the kernel, are those
open source?
There is no point debating the merit's of the open groups license when it's
legally ambiguous at best. This isn't an issue of whether we like Motif,
it's an issue of whether the license agreement is workable. It's not (I'm
not going to risk a lawsuit from the Open Group over this).
> FWIW this is more than an idle exercise. I struggled for
> over a year to get Shadow included in all the distributions
> because they didn't like my definition of "free", which at the
> time was "anyone can copy/use/distribute so long as they
> don't make money from it". This looks like a repeat of the
Something about putting software into Red Hat which we can't make money from
goes aginst our incorporation as a for-profit entity. This wasn't religious,
it was following the terms of your license (which had the virtue of being
clear).
Erik
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "Who is John Galt?" - Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand |
| |
| Linux Application Development -- http://people.redhat.com/johnsonm/lad |
Reply to: