Joern Clausen wrote the following about "Re: Motif" on Fri Aug 18 03:44:07 1995
> 
> > The source license is not that expensive for universities.  I work for
> > the university, and do have access to the source code, but only for
> > 1.2 ... which will _not_ compile under R6 (and work correctly).  
> > 
> > I'm waiting for the uni. to get the 2.x source, and then I'll start
> > working on it....
> 
> We have the sources for 2.0, but what it's worth? They are licensed
> to our faculty, and I guess (I haven't seen the legal blurb of the OSF
> yet) it is not allowed to give away *anything* of them. This would of

It depends on which kind of license your uni bought.

My amiga is 'part of' the university.  It's very legal for me to copy
the sources there, build static and shared libs, and keep the includes
around.

> course include the sources, but also shared libraries for any architecture,
> include-files, probably not even statically linked binaries (this would
> make the status of the Mosaic in X11R6.04Jan95-NotXConsortium very
> questionable).

There is absolutely _no_ legality involved with handing out static binaries.
If there were, every linux/x86 site on the planet would be sued by osf
for distributing pirated software.

> Right now I can't find anything on this topic in the source tree, and
> the paperized documentation is not available for me at the moment, but
> maybe someone can enlighten me (and others) in this question.

What I say has been verified by the Provost for Acedemic Computing at
my uni.  We had a huge debate about this 2 months ago with all of the
linux toadies.

-Chris
-- 
Chris Mattingly       | My views are not necessarily those of my employers
camattin@eos.ncsu.edu |
                      | "Good programmers write good code; great programmers
                      | 'borrow' good code."  -- Mike Gancarz