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 confidentia
"J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" wrote:
> TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't.
The two pages you mention never refer to Open Motif as an open-source
program. Rather, it is a proprietary program which may be freely distributed
with operating systems which are themselves open-
"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 tel
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 c
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
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
On Mon, 15 May 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> "J.H.M. Dassen (Ray)" wrote:
>
> > TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't.
>
> The two pages you mention never refer to Open Motif as an open-source
> program. Rather, it is a proprietary program which may be freely distribute
On Mon, 15 May 2000, 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 has specific provisions for operating systems, and the compilers
and lib
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:
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
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 w
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 th
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 s
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 you
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 inco
On Mon, May 15, 2000 at 10:09:40PM -0700, David Johnson 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 has specific provisions for operating syst
Martin Konold wrote:
> 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.
How so? Practically everything connected with Perl is dual-licensed
Artistic and GPL, and Perl has
Justin Wells wrote:
> In particular, whereas the GPL discriminates against proprietary software
> UNLESS it is an operating system, the OML discriminates against proprietary
> software IF it is an operating system.
This analogy is false. The GPL:
allows derivative works to be made,
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
David Johnson wrote:
> Would the Open Group be willing to take a lateral step and restrict
> the usage of OpenMotif to linkage with Open Source programs only? Their
> cash cow would remain intact, but their software would be fully Open
> Source, as well as Free Software.
But is this a good thing
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,
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 wor
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 (proprieta
On Tue, 16 May 2000, Justin Wells wrote:
> In particular, whereas the GPL discriminates against proprietary software
> UNLESS it is an operating system, the OML discriminates against proprietary
> software IF it is an operating system.
>
> I can't see how you can come up with a fair interpreta
On Tue, 16 May 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> David Johnson wrote:
>
> > Would the Open Group be willing to take a lateral step and restrict
> > the usage of OpenMotif to linkage with Open Source programs only? Their
> > cash cow would remain intact, but their software would be fully Open
> > Source,
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 concep
I have a technical question here.
What about Cygwin, which is GPL (i.e. Open Source), and makes UNIX
applications run/port on Windows
Operating System. However, without Cygwin the applications compiled
with Cygwin cannot be executed on Windows. Cygwin
(http://sourceware.cygnus.com/cygwin) compl
On Mon, 15 May 2000, Suhaib Siddiqi wrote:
> Can the OpenMOTIF be compiled using Cygwin on Windows and distributed?
>
> I would argue that it is the layer acting like the OS that needs to be
> open, not necessarily everything down to the microcode.
It depends on what they are trying to accompl
34 matches
Mail list logo
