Subject: Re: x11/openmotify license terms
To: Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com>
From: Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Date: 05/15/2006 21:11:09
Geert Hendrickx <email@example.com> writes:
> On Mon, May 15, 2006 at 02:19:07PM +0200, Dieter Baron wrote:
>> We should make the default motif for non-opensource OSs something other
>> than openmotif. Having a default that is not available makes little
> Btw, since openmotif is non-free, and there is an open-source alternative
> (lesstif), why don't we change the default to lesstif on all platforms? How
> many packages do we have that don't build with x11/lesstif but do with
> x11/openmotif? AFAIK only wip/jdk14 and wip/jdk15 (I haven't verified this,
> but the Makefile sets MOTIF_TYPE=openmotif).
This is a good argument, but I think we have to ask which choice
better serves the users. (My insistence on clarity on LICENSE and
NO_*_ON_* isn't a "free software is intrinsically better" position,
but "people should be aware of licensing, and not get non-Free
software unless they have chosen to do so".)
Long ago, I corresponded with the author of a complex motify-using
program who said lesstif didn't work very well.
So perhaps add PREFER_MOTIF?=openmotify in bsd.prefs.mk, and follow
that if MOTIF_TYPE isn't set by the makefile and it's not installed.
Greg Troxel <firstname.lastname@example.org>