On Mon, Aug 11, 2003 at 08:14:37AM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>   Not that this was your point, really, but I couldn't find any restriction
>   on commercial distribution except Section 4, which mostly talks about
>   indemnification.  What am I missing?  
> 
> If someone creates a derived work from NetBSD, and distributes it
> other than as an open source program (which is allowed), then one
> can't use openmotif on that derived work.
> 
> The question this raises is whether the ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES variable
> is about use of a pkgsrc-ized program, or inclusion in arbitrary
> derived systems.  I think it means the former.

I've always perceived it as an extension to the system for
derived works.  However, my personal purpose is to maintain
acceptable licenses that are compatible with the GNU philosophy
of the GNU Project, using their licenses document as a guideline.

> All that said, if someone can make a case that the openmotif license
> is not either Free(rms) or Open Source, I'd be happy to have it
> require an ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES entry.  Being careful about licenses is
> one of NetBSD's strengths, and that only happens by care at the edge
> cases like this.

Using my above requirement, the case is made by Richard Stallman:
<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html>.  However, how the
NetBSD project perceives this, is up to NetBSD.  I just want to
be able to qualify the software I install.
-- 
D. E. Evans <sinuhe@xmission.com>
<http://www.xmission.com/~sinuhe>