Subject: Re: x11/openmotify license terms
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <email@example.com>
Date: 05/15/2006 12:37:52
On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 04:36:45PM -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
> firstname.lastname@example.org writes:
> > 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 don't think we have any other package in the tree which satisfies the
following two conditions:
(a) You can freely and automatically download the distfile(s).
(b) You cannot build a binary package for personal use.
> 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.
The situatiob we have now is:
(a) bulk builds are uploaded incompletely, since any package using motif
(and the default openmotif) has a restricted dependency.
(b) the restriction of redistribution at the very least is platform
> As for using openmotif for personal use on Interix, the license text
> doesn't permit it.
This is something I am not sure about. I'd like to see a clarification
from the Open Group exactly because first the license says that you can
use it only on Open Source platforms and second that you must ask for
permissions to distribute or sublicense it. There's a hole.