Subject: Re: x11/openmotify license terms
To: Todd Vierling <email@example.com>
From: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/14/2006 15:56:44
"Todd Vierling" <email@example.com> writes:
> On 5/14/06, Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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. Contact
>> The Open Group for a license allowing distribution and sublicensing of
>> the Original Program on, with, or for operating systems which are not
>> Open Source programs.
>> So it is reasonable to assume that some parties may have licenses to
>> use openmotify on Interix, or other non-open-source systems.
> No, as such a license doesn't exist. See:
> which specifically states OpenMotif as being available only for Open
> Source OS's, period. Motif, the commercial product, is the one they
> license for commercial closed-source OS's.
The license specifically says "Contact us for a license for
distributing the Original Program on, with, or for operating systems
which are not Open Source programs" and defines "Original Program" to
mean essentially what we call "openmotif distfile". I am simply
taking them at their word. I will not dispute that the web page you
pointed out essentially contradicts the statement in license.
In the general case, I believe it's possible for people to have side
agreements, or to be in jurisdictions that hold the license to be
unenforceable, or whatever, and that letting people set
ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES solves all of this without endangering TNF.
> That said, as I pointed out privately, setting LICENSE now kills the
> openmotif binary pkg for default bulk builds. That may cause some ...
I don't think it will; I thought packages with non-free licenses that
didn't set NO_PKG_ON_FTP still got built.
LICENSE should be set according to the current documented rules for
the variables in the guide. I personally think it's a feature that
pkgsrc won't build non-free software by accident - but that's open to
> Really, this should be handled in some way that prevents building on
> non-OSS operating systems by default (even non-bulk builds!), unless
> something is set, but not prevent bulk builds at all on the open
> source OS's.
That requires an additional mechanism to perform more complex logic
about licenses, and a policy decision about the set of licenses
software can be under and get built by default without the user saying
somehow "it's ok to build a package with a license in some other set
Do you think we should not set LICENSE on some programs with non-Free
terms? If so, it might help to articulate a proposed rule for
deciding when LICENSE might be set.
Greg Troxel <email@example.com>