TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't. (See
also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/:
>"Open Source" programs mean software for which the source code is available
>without confidential
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Someone feel like getting them to change their license or their terminology?
Please read http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html
QUESTION:
Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source
Guidelines?
ANSWER:
>From the Open Motif license:
>The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
>and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
>which are themselves Open Source programs
They need to add a definition of "operating system" so that we can tell
J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't. (See
> also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
>
> Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/:
> >"Open Source" programs mean software for which the source co
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 08:20:46PM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
>QUESTION:
>Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source
>Guidelines?
>
>ANSWER:
>No. The Open Group Public License for Motif grants rights only to use
>the software on or with operating s
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:37:29PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
>
> Even supposing that the license DOES restrict use to be only with open
> source operating systems--how can you throw this license out, and not also
> throw out the GPL?
>
> The GPL limits use of GPL'd software such that you can o
On Mon, 15 May 2000, J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> >The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
> >and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
> >which are themselves Open Source programs
>
> Which puts it in the same category as Qt v1: n
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:18:38PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> > >The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
> > >and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
> > >which are themselves Open Source programs
> >
> > Which puts it in the s
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:37:29PM -0400, Justin Wells wrote:
> I think you step on to very dangerous ground when you call
> non-opensource development a "field of endeavour". Dangerous ground
> which might give way under the GPL, and prevent other things which we
> would like to allow.
I agree wi
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:18:38PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> This got me to thinking. Perhaps the QPL (QTv2+) is the perfect license
> for what the Open Group needs...
Bite your tongue. The QPL is a perfect license for nothing except an
example of how NOT to write a free software license.
--
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Joseph Carter wrote:
> I would seriously ask TOG to rewrite two or three of the clauses in the
> QPL as a matter of enforcability for one and awful ambiguities for
> another.
>
> The QPL ended up not what I expected at all. There are a couple of
> clauses in that license tha
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 10:33:58AM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> Well, according to my experience people (of all countries/cultures) I
> have been talking to seem to understand the QPL much better than the
> GPL. BSD seems to be the simpliest.
I don't know about the QPL being easier to understand
Raul Miller wrote:
> But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> think the GPL winds up being the best license:
Or more accurately, if you are trying to induce people to produce free
software by licensing your software...
> Then again, if your goal is to produce so
Raul Miller wrote:
> > But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> > think the GPL winds up being the best license:
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 12:43:41PM +0100, Dj wrote:
> Or more accurately, if you are trying to induce people to produce free
> software by licensing your
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original Motif
> license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is: would this
> generate enough revenue to be worth bothering with?
Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incom
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> > the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original
> > Motif license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is:
> > would this generate enough revenue to be worth bothering with?
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin K
Justin Wells <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> They need to add a definition of "operating system" so that we can tell
> how much of a system needs to be covered by an "open source" license before
> they will allow us to use their software with it.
Their FAQ says that the kernel is what the mean, a
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
>
> > the possibility of dual-licensing Motif, with GPL and the original Motif
> > license being choosable by the licensee. The issue here is: would this
> > generate enough revenue to be wort
Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
> fragmentation of development.
That's not true; the GPL is compatible with many other licenses.
"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> Their FAQ says that the kernel is what the mean, and that both BSD and
> Linux qualify without a problem.
They just added that question, I think based on my query representing the
view on this mailing list. Squeaky wheels, etc.
--
Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Raul Miller wrote:
> But, if you're trying to produce free (aka non-proprietary) software I
> think the GPL winds up being the best license: The one that will suffer
> the fewest chances of being ripped off by someone who wants to turn it
> into something non-free (proprietar
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Martin Konold <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> > except itself dual licensing with GPL leads unfortunately to the
> > fragmentation of development.
>
> That's not true;
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:10:46PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> Your wording is off a bit.
That's a nit. [That wording was relevant only assuming a particular goal,
and that goal was spelled out at the begining of the paragraph.]
The issue is: what is the goal for "Open
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:49:54PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> Not really. According to RMS, it is strictly only compatible with
> software whose license can be changed to the GPL. Only one license
> allows itself to transformed into the GPL, and that is the LGPL.
You're mixing unrelated concept
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> except itself
That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would have
uttered any such statement.
The MIT/X Consortium and 3-clause BSD licens
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:52:39AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> In real life, the vast majority of the people will contribute the patches
> back
> under both licenses.
In many cases, they don't really have much choice; changes on the scale of
bugfixes or small feature enhancements are easily de
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 07:49:54PM -0700, David Johnson wrote:
> But if you add BSD code to someone else's GPL code, you could be in
> trouble since the BSD license adds an additional requirement to
> distribute an additional warranty and permission statement.
That is only true if:
1) You're talk
On Thu, May 18, 2000 at 04:48:25AM -0400, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 02:32:21PM +0200, Martin Konold wrote:
> > Due to the fact that the GPL is according to RMS incompatible to anything
> > except itself
>
> That is blatantly false, and I find it hard to believe RMS would ha
tection in the preexisting material.
From: Branden Robinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: debian-legal@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: "Open Source" Motif
Date: Thu, 18 May 2000 04:51:42 -0400
On Tue, May 16, 2000 at 11:52:39AM -0500, David Starner wrote:
> In real life, the vast majority of
29 matches
Mail list logo
