From: Wichert Akkerman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Previously [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > Therefore, it is not *required* for GUI applications and it is still free > > on Linux. > > You're missing the point here: Linux is not just about `free Linux', but about > Free Software in general. And something like `free on Linux' is just Not Free.
Most of the GPL'd software isn't "free on XYZ/OS" within the context of Open Motif. The vendors that I am aware of, as well as my own employer, go to great steps to insure that the GPL doesn't pollute their proprietary OS code. The entire concept of "open source" has changed radically in the past 15 years. I happen to like the Motif license -- it gives incentive to make a marginally profitable OS open source. If you read Stallman's remarks on the =concept=, that is the objective. Provide "free" tools which proprietary vendors may find useful, but which they are forbidden from using unless they also make their code "free". Nothing in the GPL prevents what has been done with Open Motif. A person who releases code under the GPL is still free to sell a version of that code which is based on a different branch of code. Several years back I released Shadow under a BSD-like license with the libraries separately being released until the LGPL. If I wanted to (and could find someone willing to pay me ...) I could release a third version under a "You must stand on your head and sing Kumbaya" license. The discussion should focus on whether or not there is any benefit from including Motif in the LSB, not on the specific licensing terms as they apply to other "non-free" systems. Including Motif would give an incentive to vendors who wish to produce products on UNIX-like systems but can't afford a system with a commercial Motif toolkit. That benefit is definitely goodness for Linux. As always, I don't speak for IBM, I just work there ... -- Julie.
