Subject: Re: x11/openmotify license terms
To: None <>
From: Greg Troxel <>
List: tech-pkg
Date: 05/14/2006 16:36:45 writes:

> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:26:45PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
>> So it is reasonable to assume that some parties may have licenses to
>> use openmotif on Interix, or other non-open-source systems.  Setting
>> ACCEPTABLE_LICENESES is the standard, documented way to tell pkgsrc to
>> build a package with a non-free license.
> It could also means that someone setting _ACCEPTABLE, which is still the
> standard for bulk builds, is violating the license.

Then, why is openmotif different from any other program with a
non-free license?  (I'm not opposed to having a more general
discussion about licensing and bulk builds, but I'd like to be clear
if that's the issue, or if it's specifically about x11/openmotif.

I think the theory is that setting _ACCEPTABLE, building binary
packages, and not distributing those with NO_BIN_ON_* isn't a
copyright violation (assuming pkgsrc has no LICENSE/NO_*_ON_* bugs).
This is complex, involving fair use and copyright not controlling use.
But IANAL, TINLA, and I'm only giving my impression of the theory.

> That's what I want to see sorting out, either with an explicit request
> to the Open Group or from a lawyer. If the answer is "Yes, you can use
> it for personal use, as long as you don't redistribute binaries" or
> something along that line, this change is fine. Otherwise, I strongly
> object it and want to move to ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM.

I object to the use of ONLY_FOR_PLATFORM for anything remotely to do
with licensing.  I think we should keep technical issues and licensing
separate.  I don't object to adding mechanisms for platform-specific
licensing issues.

Right now LICENSE is set.  People can choose to override it by setting
ACCEPTABLE_LICENSES, or _ACCEPTABLE.   In what circumstances this is
reasonable/legal/etc. is not for us to decide - everyone makes their
own decision, perhaps after consulting counsel, according to the laws
of their own jurisdiction.  I see TNF having two goals here:

1) avoid having a pkgsrc user install a program with a non-free
   license without being aware of it and consciously choosing to do

2) avoid inducing anyone to infringe copyright

I think the current scheme meets both goals.

As for using openmotif for personal use on Interix, the license text
doesn't permit it.  It's an open question as to whether that's
enforceable (see DJB's comments on licensing).  People (on Interix)
who choose to build and install it can set LICENSE, and others can
decline.  So I don't think there's a problem.

        Greg Troxel <>