Slashdot Mirror
RMS On 'Open' Motif
martin writes: "It seems RMS is not impressed by the Open Group's recent
release of Motif into the community, according this email sent out on Saturday."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
You guys should have run this stuff by RMS first. He started this free software (or Open Source, whatever you want to call it...) stuff and whether you like it or not his opinion does matter to a lot of people. Next time just send him an email and ask him to give the proposal the once over.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Essentially, if you get off your arse, you get 'standing' (Sounds a bit like the whole online-community to me).
darkewolf
"That is not dead which can eternal lie...."
Nimheil
(As RMS sort-of points out, "operating system" isn't defined in the license - does StarOffice count as part of the OS if it's bundled in the distribution? If so, add those distributions to the non-OpenMotif-allowed list.)
Perhaps you should have those lawyers add a definition of OS that doesn't include software like OpenMotif itself and StarOffice as long as they're changing the license.
Obviously you have a slight comprehension problem. What *I* read in RMS' last paragraph as quoted is the voice of common sense and reason, "no confusion". Given that you think I have an 'f*?ed up attitude', whatever one of those might be, my banishing you to the commercial world was quite an apt move.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
"Eat me."
No thanks, I have a sense of taste.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
Actually, to be picky, RMS doesn't have anything to do with Open Source if he can help it. Read the Philosophy section of the GNU web site. He's got some good reasons for disliking it. However, you are basically right. RMS' criteria are very systematic and fairly clear and distinct.
-RickHunter
I respecfully dissagree...
Excellent points! You would think that RMS would be happy to have others join his crusade for "free software" but it seems he only wants the ones who he deems suitable. Granted he has the right to pick and choose, but...
Stallman says:
Motif still cannot be part of a free
operating system, and combining or linking someone else's GPL-covered code with Motif is still a violation of the GPL except in very special
circumstances.
I don't quite understand this quote from him. Why can't I link GPL'd software against Motif? Why am I not allowed this freedom?
I've heard RMS say in the past that any license that doesn't require a source-code release is a bad thing because it doesn't promote freedom. This list does seem to contradict what I've heard from him in the past...
The next site to slashdot will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and start slashdotting it early!
If so, OpenMotif diminishes this, and the only way they'd be likely to be able to improve the situation would be if something like BX-Pro was readily available for free, thus encouraging people to use and pay for licenses for Motif.
That's not happening, and I don't think the value comes in increased Motif licensing fees.
If so, then the "OpenMotif" strategy makes it easier to deploy that software more widely, particularly on Linux/BSD systems.
I think this is the actual merit to OpenMotif, by the way.
Note that the software that gets deployed as a result is likely not "free software," and that TOG and its sponsors thus couldn't care less what RMS says.
I'm really not sure where the value lies in that case; perhaps others can theorize more usefully.
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
So what you are saying is, that if some beilives in something strongly, they should just bend over and forget about what they think is The Right Thing(TM)? You got a good point (in a real sacastic kinda way)
"What does the billboard say, come on and let's play, forget about the movement. Anger is a gift" -- RATM
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
Your post doesn't make sense.
"...refusing to allow the developers who wrote software and released it under the GPL (as the GPL is non-revokable) to compile their programs for use with Motif."
This is baloney. A programmer who writes software can do whatever they want with it. If they release it under the GPL, that only changes what other people can do with it. The original programmer can give it away under other licenses, sell it to Microsoft, or link it with anything they like.
"That is precisely why I will use proprietary licenses and avoid the GPL; I simply cannot entrust my code to Stallman."
This cracks me up. I guess there must be some hidden clause in the GPL that only shows up when you dip the paper in lemon juice. It says "Despite anything else you read here, actually, RMS makes all the rules. You Must Trust Him".
If I release software under the GPL, that just means I understand the license and want those terms for my software, not necessarily that I trust RMS.
And I think it's great that he's uncompromising. Too many people in the world today are far to willing to compromise their ethics just for some short term benefit. I try to be just as uncompromising with my ethics.
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
"HTML needs a rant tag" - Alan Cox
Exactly. For once you would think that even the most rabid anti-RMS folk would realize the good sense in what RMS is saying. You would be a fool to fall prey to the Open Group's ploy and use Motif at this point. After all, GTK will allow you to develop commercial applications on any platform that it runs on (which is nearly everything at this point, GTK certainly compiles on as many platforms as Motif). QT will allow you to produce GPLed software for an equally wide range of platforms, and for a small fee you can produce commercial applications.
If you absolutely must use Motif, well then, LessTif is becoming quite a viable alternative. If you code to it's particular subset of the Motif API you will be able to create genuine Motif apps for those platforms that have Motif, and the BSDs and Linux can use LessTif.
The Open Group did too little too late. Their investment in Motif is already worth next to nothing.
He might be 100% right on all points, but it would be nice if he went into a little more detail and explained why he comes to this conclusion. For example, he could state exactly how he feels their definition of open source is different. Or maybe give some examples or something. I'm honestly not RMS-bashing here, but it just sounds like He has delivered His judgement and we're just supposed to accept it without further explanation. R..M..S has spoken...oken...oken...oken....
Admit nothing, deny everything and make counter-accusations.
He's not any "better" than you or I - but you shouldn't simply dismiss him just because it's currently en vogue in the slashdot community to put Stallman down
No, you should dismiss him because he has crazy, completely unworkable ideas and wants to destroy your right to sell the fruits of your labor (if you write software, that is.)
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Yeah yeah yeah. I've heard it all before. It's quite entertaining to read the trolls as they write about in their pathetic throes of anger (and fear?) just because one guy will stand up against them. I'm only surprised they haven't singled me out for repetitive bashing on Slashdot in general, like they did with Signal11 (what's up with the whole "Karma Whore" bit anyway?) But I suppose it's better that way; every post trolling me in the UCSSM rabbit-hole is a troll not posted in Slashdot at large, which is what I'm trying to do in the first place.
Even though the developers of Motif attempt to meet Stallman halfway by releasing their software for use by the open source community while ensuring their right to sell the software to makers of closed systems, Stallman refuses to accept their position. In addition, he uses the GPL as leverage by refusing to allow the developers who wrote software and released it under the GPL (as the GPL is non-revokable) to compile their programs for use with Motif. That is precisely why I will use proprietary licenses and avoid the GPL; I simply cannot entrust my code to Stallman.
The terms of the Motif license could actually *benefit* the Linux community. By releasing their software as open source only for specific OSs (like Linux), they add value to that operating system. Somebody might think twice before paying for Motif on another platform and use Linux in order to get it for free. Nonetheless, Stallman's cavalier attitude prevents him from seeing this tangible benefit to the OSS community.
Do not get me wrong; he is an excellent programmer and has nothing but good intentions for the software community. Nonetheless, his uncompromising nature makes him very difficult for people to deal with. If this is the response that Motif gets for making a gesture to the OSS community, do you think that they will make another?
Diplomacy will be key to gaining acceptance for free/OS software. The attitude that Stallman brings to the table will prevent people from recognizing the legitimacy of the OSS movement from a business perspective in addition to an ideological one.
ByteMyCode.com: A Web 2.0 code sharing community.
It amuses me that, because the GPL discriminates against the production of closed-source commercial software, it should fail to qualify as an "Open Source" licence.
I was gonna sleep with my GF last night but RMS didn't like her :(
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
However. Regardless of their motives, they're doing a Nice Thing by releasing their source. In their FAQ (which I can't get to right now; their site seems to be down), they actually state, "we'd like to release it more freely, but we have preexisting contracts." AFAIK, they want to release it under a freer license later.
It's important that people recognize the licensing issues, and it's true that at this point, it can't be used by free software. But RMS should at least acknowledge the fact that they're trying. Not everything is an evil conspiracy to undermine free software. A lot of things, but not everything. =)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
You're not making any sense here. How can any license prevent an other person from selling "your own creation?" Through your written words, you've completely reversed the meaning of the thought you seem to be trying to convey. The GPL does not, and can not deprive one from selling one's own creation. It can do even less to deprive a third party from selling your creation--those GPL simply does not recognize those situations. In fact, the GPL allows, and the Free Software Foundation's The GNU Manifesto encourages you to sell your free software.
If you had any clue what Stallman has done for "alternative technologies" as well as technologies that could only be described as utterly mainstream (text editors, hyperlinked help systems, compilers, source code-level symbolic debuggers, rule-based expert systems like "make", etc.), you would have respect for the man's opinions, if only in light of his wealth of experience. I think it's unfortunate that promising alternative technologies are saddled with the appearance of self-important gas bag detractors who can't be bothered to read publically available documents and always seem to find their way to Slashdot.
--
Personally, I like Motif. I've developed with it (and LessTif) for nearly a decade (on and off), it has mature GUI builders, a UIL, is Xt-based (so it cooperates with other Xt-based toolkits, unlike GTK and Qt), and there's already a patch (in alpha) to OpenMotif to make it themeable (using GTK themes). If it's so ugly, why do other toolkits copy its look? (Granted, the defaults are poorly chosen, but who uses the defaults?) And while I would like to see the OpenMotif license more open that it is, Stallman seems oblivious to the subtleties of the license. As I wrote elsewhere:
Motif is hardly dead -- too many existing projects out there use it and there's too big an expertise pool of existing Motif developers (on the proprietary Unix side) for that.
-- Alastair
They use the word "open" just so many times, and in association with the term "Open Source," that an uncareful reader could draw the conclusion that they are producing something that is, in fact "OpenSource."
Fortunately, they do acknowledge on the page that this isn't the case, and even indicate in what ways OpenMotif does not conform.
The blizzard of uses of "Open" for something that isn't is nonetheless richly amusing. (I mentioned this to RMS, and he agreed that it was amusing.)
If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.
So if A is motif and you're writing B, and choose another license than the GPL AND A is gpl-ed, you're out of luck: you can't decide to release B closed.
Besides that, if you release it under the GPL, you give away the (c) to the FSF. Re-read it. It's there.
--
Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
I have to wonder:
What would happen if RMS was hit by a bus?
The ownership of Motif does NOT reside with The Open Group. It resides with the seven sponsors of the OSF Motif PST Agreement. The lawyers of most of these companies working in conjunction with The Open Group's lawyers created the license at the end of 1999. Getting the lawyers from several different companies to agree on the words was a long enough task. It was very late in the release process that it was raised as an issue that the words defining Open Source were inconsistent with the OSI definition.
However, we should state, as we do in the FAQ, that there is no intent to be anything other than consistent with the OSI Open Source definition. Indeed, I have already started working with the legal people within the various companies to request permission to change the words in the license to explicitly reference the OSI Definition. We were unable to complete this task prior to the release date, and decided not to delay the release any more for this problem with the definition.
I cannot say how long it will take to correct the license but we are making progress with the lawyers. I already have approval for the change from two companies.
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
666? very interesting....
--------
-------
"Every artist is a cannibal, every poet is a thief."
Read it again, the bits starting 'you may use the program to...'. Now it doesn't explicitly say you may _not_ use the program to do something not mentioned (indeed, you don't need permission from a licence to use it), but the implication is that uses not explicitly allowed are forbidden.
Whether or not such terms are legally enforceable, that could stop it being a free licence - if you can think of something that people might want to do which is not listed.
IIRC the PHP engine Zend was released under the QPL. That doesn't make any sense since the uses for Zend are not limited to 'compiling, linking and running programs'. Implicitly the QPL forbids you to use Zend as a scripting language!
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
Check this page out:
http://www.gnu.org/p hilosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
I think this is more or less what you're looking for. There aren't numeric ratings, but rather there are descriptions of each license, and exactly how free it is, and in what ways.
In post-9/11 America, the CIA interrogates YOU!
Well, if I remember right, the Zealots were a fanatical religious group in Roman-occupied Judea who were trying to get rid of the Romans. (and didn't really do so well - the Romans were powerful and determined to stay)
So I'd say that while any group of fanatics can be labeled zealots it's most appropriate for religious (and religious-like) oriented fanatics.
Besides, people obsessed with money are already called greedy. And if they don't utilize their money, but instead just keep it around (uncommon now, but more common when usury was generally criminal) they're miserly too.
-- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Obviously, RMS spent too much time analyzing the license. He clains that the license is incompatible with most GNU/Linux distrobutions. Where? Why? He doesn't say. Maybe he's just reading too much into it.
Actually, TOG's licence reminded me of the QT licensing issues - TOG wants to get paid for commercial users of Motif. Hmmm....
---------------------------------
---------------------------------
Visit
One other question for the crowd: Why is it that people obessed with making money are never called zealots?
Um, maybe because they're not?
Zeal is devotion to a cause or ideal. Making money for its own sake is neither. I suppose you could stretch the definition of "ideal" to include pure greed, but it would be stretching past generally accepted usage.
Is it just me, (he says knowing full well it is), or does it seem like the only reason that they would even bother to "open" Motif to the point they did is as an attempt to be "hip" and "with" the open source community? I understand that there's still Lesstif, if you're looking for a completely bared solution, but it's almost like there's an ulterior motive here.
Of course, I wouldn't go as far as RMS did in my personal tirade against the whole situation. It just seems to me like there's something funny going on behind the scenes - the intentions are almost betrayed by the actions.
</Paranoid>
"I'm not even supposed to BE here today!"
I (and every well intentioned /.er) shouldn't respond to that, because Rombuu is a known M$ astroturfer and seasoned troll, but I challenge him to present one reference that mentions RMS lobbying for revocation of all IP legislation as it currently stands.
Methinks it is you, albeit within the faint limits of Slashdot trolling, who is trying to stop people from exercising their right to freely share the fruits of their intellectual labour with the world at large.
Information wants to be beer, or something like that.
We don't have to follow what he says but we should listen to him considering he only wrote the GPL, started the FSF and wrote GCC which allowed Linus to write Linux which is why we're all here. (on slashdot)
I think ESR means well, but that RMS is sadly right. Without things such as the copyleft, giant soulless corporations will steal anything that's not bolted down. It's a shame that people have to be forced into playing nice, but that's the way the world is.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
The works of RMS has very positively affected my profesion over the last 15-16 years.
We all have a lot that we owe him thanx. But when he goes of on a rant on how bad everything that is not crafted precisely after his mind I tend to phase him out, and so should the rest of you.
In the matter of the Motif "Open Source" he has a few points but he draws way to farfetched conclusions! I share his hope that Motif will be less restricted, but I do not see how I can not legally use Motif on my RedHat box.
He probably won't be happy to hear that he has sent people the open source way, as one the axes that he likes to grind is that open source software is not the same as his beloved free software.
Never trust a man in a blue trench coat, Never drive a car when you're dead
use, and closed source software writers are free to use insights
gleaned from looking at open source code.
Restrictions on use are really obnoxious.
Where does he say that he wants to destroy your right to sell the fruits of your labor (software)? The last time I read The GNU Manifesto, which Stallman wrote, it encouraged me to sell free software to make a profit. In fact, it has an entire section devoted to feeding hungry programmers.
--
I use the GPL the same reason I use locks-- it keeps the honest people honest.
You are right, and I had never thought about the BSD license in that way. If only everyone was up for a test of their morals.
MORALITY TEST:
1. You are offered money in exchange for acts you consider unscrupulous. You should:
a: Take the money and feel guilty.
b: Change your scruples.
c: All of the above.
2. On Slashdot (News for nerds, etc) there is a posting about RMS. You should:
a: Call RMS a whiner and whisk him off to Russia.
b: Call RMS a whiner and ask him to step aside.
c: Say that RMS is correct, but he should really stop whining.
3: When asked to use Motif in an "open source" project, you should:
a: Use Qt instead.
b: Use MFC instead.
c: Use Visual Basic instead.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
The open source guidelines specify that there has to be no discrimination against a particular area or endeavor of work
:-). The restriction is not on the specific platform, but on the license of the platform. In this sense it is no different than the GPL. (Read that carefully - I said "in this sense" -- obviously there are other senses in which it differs.)
Except (at least in the GPL case) against linking to "incompatibly licensed" code.
the [OpenMotif] license [...] only lets you use it on certain platforms.
Not quite. It'll let you use it on any platform so long as that platform is open source. If Windows (hah) or Solaris (maybe) were to open their source tomorrow, you could freely use OpenMotif on them (although that might not be helpful on Windows
this is restrictionware
And the GPL is not?
Both the GPL and the OpenMotif licenses place restrictions on the licensee. In both cases the effect is to encourage software to be free.
-- Alastair
Cheapbytes.com baby!
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Well agree with the general "Motif" stinks mood of this discusion. I have always thought this.
One of the main reasons why Windows 3.1 swept UNIX aside on the desktop market was Motif. I mean how could you persuade your boss to spend 3 times the money on UNIX hardware when the desktop looked so bad (worse than W3.1 is bad!!!).
So now we have a group of guys with a legacy product who are trying to breath some life into it or look for another job. So they decide to try some high fashion open source trendiness, but, they screwed that up too!
I suppose you could say RMS was overeacting as nobody in thier right mind would choose to use Motif. But I think he is right to whine moan and grizzle about the whole thing.
Basicaly, its like "esso" sticking an "environmentally friendly" sticker on the Exxon Valdiz. If you let anyone use the "free" "open" etc. words when they don't mean it the whole thing becomes meaningless.
Y2K is open! -- Well its full of holes anyway!
Old COBOL programmers never die. They just code in C.
I don't think there's anything stopping them from distributing it all in the non-free section, although I'd have to look at the license again.
Leapfrog (yet another Debian user)
"then you really should get back in your little commercial box."
That's exactly the f*&#ed up attitude I'm talking about. I people don't agree with you, then they're completely committed to commercial software.
Eat me.
Another expert heard from.
[GTK is] not as ugly as Motif,
By default they look pretty much the same.
ontop of things GTK is themeable,
So is OpenMotif now. There's (in dev, almost alpha) a patch, it even reads GTK themes. And the developers have proposed an additional API back to the GTK project to make extracting themes (and building theme editors) easier.
Quoting from the MotifZone discussion
They also plan to do something similar for Qt 2.0.
-- Alastair
Of course, the Open Group has never been particularly open and I really don't think they plan to start now. The only thing that's ever kept them in check has been a large community of OSS developers who they know can put out a better product. You know what? These days, the market's following the OSS programmers, now the Open Group.
Motif will continue to get the same level of attention from me (IE: None) and even traditionally Motif based companies like IBM are starting to put out GTK products (I should know, I speced one out and implemented it before I left.) I wonder how long it will be before the Open Group announces all motif development will cease. We should start a pool. Maybe a Slashdot karma pool...
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
You are a whiner. RMS did a lot, and now you are just sitting there whining. You didn't have to click on that link, then click on that button, then type in a bigass flamebait post, now did you?
You now have to deal with pissed off moderators, peeved Slashdotters. Of course, you can keep taking shots at RMS, but he can't really take his ball and go home. Why? Because his software is open sourced. That's what it was all about.
RMS thinks freedom can be measured by the bucket? On the contrary RMS
is very systematic in the criteria he uses to distinguish open source
from not open source.
I entirely agree with RMS on this one. Restrictions on use are
obnoxious and aginst the spirit of free software.
First Troll Tech managed to kill off Project Harmony. Is the Open Group Trying to kill lesstif?
Everyone pretty much agrees that the QPL is not an open source license. At least everyone who counts. That's one of reasons GTK/Gnome are as popular as they are. It takes a pretty good reason to start an entirely new competing project.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Communism basically suggests an even share of the community for everyone, socialism contraststs this by offering shares in proportion to the effort put into the comunity.
Using that definition, RMS's views are more communist than socialist, because he wants everyone to have equal access to all software, regardless of how much they contribute. The big problem with free software and open source (IMHO) is that it makes it very easy for freeloaders to get by, but very difficult for people who actually contribute something to get rewarded for their work.
If standards are increasingly driven by the open source community, some companies might start questioning why they should invest money and manpower in the Open Group. That's gotta have some people worried.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
First of all, I disagree with a LOT of thing RMS says (especially his holy war against Open Source Movement), but I see him as ESSENTIAL to us - he's not only the guy that create everything our community is based on (and indirectly /.) but also the guardian of Free Software/Open Source against trolls like Troll Tech and NotOpen Group.
(So, please, all Anonymous Cowards that started insulting RMS, SHUT UP! Without him, you would be using some overoveroverpriced/outdated software from some monopolistic/oligopolistic company)
RMS' comments about that crazy license NotOpen Group (or their sponsor, whatever, that doesn't matter of the suckiness of the license) invented on OpenMotif are right! It sounds to me that NotOpen Group thought, "Troll Tech invented the QPL and killed Project Harmony, let's do the same thing and kill Lesstif!"
And the most important question... they 'opened' Motif, but NOT CDE. Why? Explanation left to the reader (Hint: money)
Cesar Cardoso can be found at cesar at zyakannazio dot eti dot br (or at least I believe so)
True, but it's not [normally] used by Linux after boot-up.
This is more of a good point. But SCSI controllers are often used in very high-stress conditions so any problems would probably make them unsellable. Same with video cards, and most bits which reside inside the actual PC.
The problem with [random home scanner/printer driver] is it won't be used in stressed conditions so the manufacturer can get away with releasing a buggy driver. It'd be OK if merely the scanner was unstable cos it couldn't crash the computer so everyone could see where the blame laid. But a dodgy driver running as root could well crash the system.
Is HURD any defence?
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Ok, there were more people behind GCC than just RMS. But I'd say it was arguable that GCC couldn't have happened without RMS.
Without GCC, "free software" would be a lot less meaningful. Without a free compiler, many people could never even get started coding.
perl -e 'fork||print for split//,"hahahaha"'
Well,
Motif has always been available in source code version to students and from certain unknown russian ftp sites.
Haven't checked recently but ftpsearch.lycos.com will probably produce something.
I agree with Richard, if Lesstif works: use it, if it doesn't: code it.
Thanks
The QPL does not restrict what you do with Qt in private. Section 6 clearly states that it only comes into effect when the software is distributed. In fact, the whole reason for section 6 is to prevent "private" distributions.
The QPL's restrictions on distributing come into play when I give a copy to a coworker. On the other hand, the GPL's apply when I give a copy to my friend!
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Hmmm...
Why you shouldn't use the Library GPL for your next library
"by Richard Stallman
This article was written in February 1999."
Draw your own conclusions.
- mkleehammer
Noone is forcing you to read what RMS has to say. Now stop crying and go back to mommy.
..that Motif doesn't stink.
I'm under the impression that Motif has well and truly 'missed the Linux bus' and that few people could really care about it, except for compatibility with some old packages which could do with a rewrite to operate in KDE/Gnome/Enlightenment (delete all non applicable Windowing environments). I think we have a lot to thank Motif for - if they'd Open Sourced it a few years ago KDE and Gnome may never have started.
I have to confess that one thing I would really like to kill in Linux is the sheer profusion of licences. I never can be bothered to read the things anyway. Maybe we could do with a license rating system with (100% = GPL, 0% = Microsoft Shrink wrap licence).
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
It may be "damn ugly" compared to something that is completely customizable like enlightenment, but it has two things that a lot of the current batch of WM's don't have going for it:
a) functional w/out clutter
b) standardization
Joe Corporate Guy wants those two things for his employee that he hired of the street that isn't a Unix wizard.
Besides, if you compared it to the other WMs that were out when Motif was created (not counting HP's, since that is where a lot of it came from), mwm is *nice*.
...and expensive. Both in terms of money and performance. It is crap.
"Self important malcontent"... never mind that his efforts on our behalf make the Linux kernel remotely useful.
I fail to see the connection between retaining the rights to your software with a license like the GPL and the ability to sell that creation. The problem here is that everyone thinks of programming as making a product rather than providing a service. There is no end in sight, even in a 100% GPL-software world, for the ability of programmers and software firms to derive livelihood and profits from their work. The idea being, rather than selling programs as widgets, that programmers and software firms sell their creativity and services. In fact, this improves the lot of programmers since once they write the code it is Free (per the GPL) and they cannot lose the right to use/modify/improve it, even after the terms of their current contract is over. Now wouldn't you love to see what could happen if MS developers had the ability to work with their own code outside the restrictions imposed on innovation by their company? And how would that impair commerce in any way?
I do not have a signature
Yes. They are free to have their restrictions. Nobody denies that.
But to claim that they are now compliant with the 'open source' philosophy is incorrect.
And it's certainly not free software.....
Who in their right mind would pay for free software? Yeah, I know sell support... that's why all those companies like Red Hat and Linux Care have been soooooo profitable...
Whatever... here's an idea, keep your IP and sell copies of your software. Works out better for all involved that way. If someone wants to see your source, license it to them.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
WRONG! RMS didn't invent source that is open! It existed a LONG LOGN LOGN LOGN LOGN LONG time before 1984! BSD for example started back in 1977, though not opensource by todays standard, anyone could get hold of the source if they wanted too.
Ok, so... just out of curiosity... where did I say that RMS invented "source that is open?" At no point in my argument did I make that logical jump? I didn't, you did. What I did say is that RMS did however champion the "source that is open" movement when it had hit a VERY low point in it's existance, and he saw a need for it. I also said that he has staid with it, pushed it, moved it, and spearheaded it since the day he decided to step forth and stand up for his ideals. I feel, that my point, and that which you replied are two completely and totally different points, and I would ask you to please explain to me what you were attempting to acheive with your comment.
So, RMS doesn't count then?
Je ne parle pas francais.
He doesn't have a problem with them wriging software and selling it. (or at least, that's not what he's talking about here).
RMS is saying, simply, that if you want to call it OPEN SOURCE, or FREE SOFTWARE, then you must MEET THE DEFINITION, not just use the words to dupe people into thinking you are playing the same ball game as everyone else.
Motif is not OSS, even with this new license, so why should they have the privelege of calling it that?
Really.. he's not knocking the fact that they hand out source.. that's a good thing.. he's knocking the fact that they are misrepresenting themselves.
They wrote it, they can have any restrictions they like but they can't call it open source because it dosn't fit the Open Source definition as set out by the OSI, nor does it fit the Free Software definition as set out by the FSF. Therefore calling Motif either Open Source or Free Software is at best misleading and at worst an outright lie, and thats the point RMS is making.
bil
Where you stand depends on where you sit...
I am definetly going to agree with you that is had been a double edged sword. Zealotry doesn't come without a price, here in Tennessee some of the most frightening people I have met a religious group called "snake handlers" i don't know if you've ever heard of them or not, but it's a religious group that goes around holding poisonous vipers because they feel that god wouldn't allow the viper to bite them, as long as they are pure of heart. Defenite zealotry.
:) for me personally, and for what I feel is at least a considerably sized portion of the current open source population, I would not have been introduced to open source had it not been for the FSF and for the radical push of Stallman. If the GNU tools had not been married to the Linux kernel at such an early age, and through magic, chance and coincidence, the linux kernel become the "golden child" of the open source movement (at least according to the media) then a great many of us would have never experienced free software.
:) he's not interested in furthering commercial open source, he is interested in guaranteeing the existance and life of free software. And that is what I applaud him for, not for his business saavy or darned friendly personality ;)
The same parallel can almost be drawn to stallman, however one could almost consider him the viper
As to whether he has hurt of helped commercial open source, well, let's face it, that's not his bag
Yes, plenty of them qualify as free software licenses, in RMS's/FSF's opinion. You see, RMS applies his criteria and priorities consistently, which is something most people can't do (and are jealous of), which is probably why so many trolls can't stand him.
Sreeram.
----------------------------------
Observation is the essence of art.
the implication is that uses not explicitly allowed are forbidden.
What a load of bull! The license means only what it says, and is absolutely silent on what it does not say. Gee, is that concept so hard to grasp?
Copyright law does not restrict usage, so any usage not specifically addressed by a license is allowable. A license only needs to address the actions that copyright law restricts.
A Government Is a Body of People, Usually Notably Ungoverned
Well, RMS makes good points. I consider myself a purist, but maybe not a fanatic. I prefer the GPL and the term "free software" but I don't refuse when I find that I have to use Windows at work. I would like to, but I don't. However, Open Motif is something I can live without. Motif is nowhere near as popular as it was even two years ago, and it has a free alternative.
Why would I want to use clickware restricted to certain platforms that uses a screwy definition of open source? It sounds to me like the Open Group wanted all the advatages of "open source" without all the hassel. This isn't really open source. This is just something designed to look like it.
I am vindicated. RMS has spoken, and he is on my side.
it's green.
I'm sick of everyone always bashing RMS. Without him standing up against stuff like this your own free software and open source movments would crumble. Businesses would slowly change the meaning of the words and you would all just sit there shrugging your shoulders and letting it happen.
FiGZ.COM - A waste of perfectly good web space
OpenGroup is not calling OpenMotif "open source", and their web site explicitly says that OpenMotif misses the Open Source Definition because of the OS restriction.
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
--
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delenda est Windoze
Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
You're right, the term "Open Source" as you think of it is polluted...in a sort. A better way of saying is that the term is changing. In this lovely world in which we live, with these lovely languages we speak, a word or phrase only means what people think it means. Just like the hacker vs. cracker arguments, Open Source means what the majority of people believe it means, regardless of what some company or group defines it as.
It's the same as free software - you may say that means that you are free to use the code for wahtever you like - you know what it really means? It means you don't pay to use it...and that's because I guarentee you that's what the majority of people think it means. A word or phrase only has the meaning by which the majority understands it.
Restrictions on use are obnoxious and aginst the spirit of free software.
You mean like not allowing GPL code to be used in closed source projects? I refuse to use any library code that falls under the stricter GPL, and any free software I write will be truly free and fall under a BSD style license. Stallman's view of free is "you're free to agree with me."
Admittedly, I'm content as a user to use any full blown applications that are GPL. I certainly won't be contributing back to them though. I don't want my contributions to be restricted like that. Maybe that's the crux of it - GPL stuff gives me freedom as a user, but not freedom as a developer.
The restrictions the free software foundation puts on it's software are, to me, very similar to the ones being put on Motif. It's almost ironic that Stallman has an issue with this. The net result is that I can't legally use it unless I agree with their view on life. The license on things like Python, IJG, and PNG give me real freedom.
The most ironic thing is that for all his masturbatory posings on "freedom", the freedom to sell your own creation is evidently a right he would deprive others of.
I disagree with this thought. I had an email conversation with RMS once, and discovered he does still support the idea of commercial software. He would prefer that all software was GPL, or had a GPL equivalant, but he's at least realistic.
The discussion was somewhat eye-opening for me - I assume he was quite staunch anti-commercial software. After the conversation with him, I got to thinking about it, and realized that his stance on it shouldn't have been surprising as it was. If he had been opposed to EVERYTHING besides Open Source / Free Software, LGPL wouldn't exist. As it stands, the way that GPL & LGPL work, you can use EMACS to write a program, GCC to compile it, and dynamicly link it to libc - and sell it as a closed source, commercial item. If had wanted to be a real ass about it, LGPL wouldn't exist, and there would have been no viable route to take to produce a closed source program using an open source compiler.
The end of commerce != freedom? With that, I have to agree. RMS being bad for the Linux movement? That I'm not so sure about - I do have to conceed one of RMS's views: without GNU, Linux probably wouldn't exist. It was the GNU tool set that helped the development and acceptance of Linux (however, I'm still not going to refer to it at GNU/Linux ;-) Is it really a stumbling block for Linux being accepted into the mainstream? I doubt it. Methinks your trying for flamebait here. Interesting flamebait, but flamebait none the less.
Davis Ray Sickmon, Jr - looking for something to read? Check out my three free novels at MidnightRyder.org
shouldn't be mislead into thinking it is free software.
You don't need vague words like `spirit'. The principle behind the
GPL is that the software is free in the sense that you can do what you
like with it, so long as you don't infringe anyone elses freedom in so
doing.
If someone wants to see your source, license it to them.
Or just include it with the binary. Its still copyrighted, so nobody can redistribute it legally unless you let them.
Well, if you don't care about his opinion, why did you read the article and comment on it? Presumably you care enough to disagree with it - in which case you are making his opininion important.
Personally I don't follow what RMS says with any particular fervour, but it is interesting to see his viewpoint, particularly on licensing matters, where he has strong views, and does set certain standards that others choose to follow.
Sure, I can sell software under the GPL once...but probably not more than that. Why would I want to spend months writing code, then sell it to someone, only to have them turn around and give it away to anyone, for free? How the hell am I ever going to sell more than one copy? Under this system, I had better make sure that I leave lots of features (which hopefully only I can implement) out of the release, so that I can add them later and sell the second version.
The GPL-centric view works for people like maintenence programmers and contractors, whose work is so specific that it can't be re-sold. But any software company who tries to create a generic, broadly-usable product is screwed if they release it under the GPL. All that work...for exactly one sale.
If the licence says 'you may use the software for X, Y, and Z', then it implies that you may _not_ use the software for something not listed. Otherwise, why bother listing the 'allowed' uses at all?
As for copyright not restricting usage, I agree. Most likely all the stuff in the QPL about which uses are allowed is legally meaningless. But when considering whether a licence counts as free or not, you normally assume that all its terms are enforceable. Who knows, they might _become_ enforceable in the not-too-distant future.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I see RMS as forced to comment every time some organisation/company hijacks the free software, open source hype attached to some press release, which is bound to attract plenty of press coverage ,and reach eyeballs who aren't particularly clued up about the issues behind some of this wonderful "free" software they keep hearing is taking the world by storm..
-- Oh Well
won't including OpenMotif in an OS distribution then make it an non-OSI-compliant OS and illegal to include OpenMotif?
:)
No. They are really only talking about whether the kernel itself is Open Source. They want to make sure that the people who have traditionally licensed Motif continue to do so. It hurts them not at all to give us LessTif users Motif.
-russ
Don't piss off The Angry Economist
The open source guidelines specify that there has to be no discrimination against a particular area or endeavor of work - the license on this motif that is masquerading as open source only lets you use it on certain platforms.
This is not free software, this is not open source, this is restrictionware.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
I didn't say he wants to revoke ALL IP legislation.
Read Why Sofware Should Be Free and its pretty clear what his philosophy is. All software should be free, ergo, you should have no rights to your software.
DrLunch.com The site that tells you what's for lunch!
Then again, it's not just RMS urging developers not to use Motif... I'll join that picket line, too -- Motif is DAMN UGLY...
--
--
fat lenny's gonna lick your brain today.
Not suprised no. But, as much as anyone might bitch about RMS's level of devotion to 'The Cause' *grins* His work and in-yer-face responses have inspired more then one hacker to move to opensource solutions.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie...."
Nimheil
Er, that would mean that Qt is not open source, since the QPL tells you what you may and may not 'use' the software for. (Whereas with the GPL and other licences, using the software is not restricted, but distributing copies of it may be.)
Okay, the QPL's statement of what you may use Qt for seems to cover all the bases - developing, compiling and linking programs, and developing new free programs - but technically it would count as non-free, since there may be some use which is not mentioned and thus implicitly disallowed. In fact the condition that programs must be 'legally developed' is a bit worrying - eg if DeCSS were ruled to be illegal, you couldn't link it with Qt even in some more liberal country where use of DeCSS were allowed.
-- Ed Avis ed@membled.com
I agree with almost everything Richard Stallman has to say on this one. The only major beef I have with Stallman's open letter is with the following sentences: "Most programs that were written for Motif can use LessTif with no changes. Please support the free software community by using LessTif rather than Motif. Some finishing work still needs to be done on LessTif; to volunteer, contact lesstif@hungry.com."
Stallman's use of the term "finishing work" is misleading. Stallman fails to point out that LessTif presently implements the base, CDE-unaware Motif 1.2 widget library and little else. mwm, UIL, and libMrm are a long way from merely requiring "finishing work." The Hungry Programmers plan to support Motif 2.1 but freely admit in the LessTif FAQ that compatibility with Motif 2.0 will "take a long time."
Beyond having "made room for CDE compatible widgets and applications," the prospects for CDE implementation are murkier. The LessTif FAQ says that "the people in the eXode project...are working on" CDE, but the Enhanced X Open Desktop (eXode) Project Goals page flatly states that "eXode won't be the free CDE."
Thus, it's a stretch to say that the current LessTif requires only "finishing work" to be fully compatible with Motif 1.2, and it's even more questionable if the aim is parity with OpenMotif 2.1.30, let alone CDE.
By the way, the above is not meant to put down the LessTif project or the A HREF="http://www.hungry.com/">Hungry Programmers -- they've done excellent work thus far.
If everyone were to switch to LessTif in its current form, there'd be little, if any, incentive for anyone to move forward from Motif 1.2 to Motif 2.1 -- Motif would either ossify or fork at 1.2, and either way, Motif 2.1 (even as an API) would more or less cease to exist. Those who wrote their programs to the Motif 2.1 API would have to back-port their code to work with the Motif 1.2-based LessTif API (or switch GUI toolkits altogether). I won't offer my position on that issue at the moment, but when advocating LessTif as an alternative to OpenMotif, Stallman should have at least acknowledged it.
Stallman may or may not merely be assuming that any release of Motif beyond 1.2 is irrelevant (since, like it or not, Motif 1.2 is still the predominant version in use), but it is careless of him, and a little troubling, that he doesn't mention it at all.
However, this quibble aside, I agree with the thrust of what Stallman wrote.
The restriction to Open-Source operating systems is a problem. While you can get away with quite a lot of things under the Open-Source banner, this one violates pretty much every guideline set and "example license" out there. GPL and BSD, the two most popular "example licences" out there, certainly don't allow this. It violates the discrimination clauses of the Debian Free Software Guidelines and the Open-Source Definition. And on top of that, it's just plain not fair to those who choose to use other operating systems.
I never much liked Motif anyway. It was a great piece of work for its time, but it had too much inertia going for it; it eventually seems to have stopped evolving. When that happened, the other toolkits grew to surpass it. It's a shame, but it happens to every piece of software in time. It's the nature of the beast; when software stops evolving, it is ruthlessly cut out of the marketplace by faster-evolving software, which in turn will eventually be cut themselves.
Except when you own the trademark, you also control the definition, and the way in which a term can be used. It's in the OSI's best interest to defend abuse of their trademark, or they will lose it.
I'm going to try to be gentle here, but if you ask a lot of people, particularly some the BSD people who were working for open source long before Stallman got into it, Stallman set back the open source movement with his zealotry.
Things like gcc and emacs succeeded because most of the people who thought that Stallman was a crackpot also understood how important it is to avoid dividing a small community.
For a long time, corporations were afraid of dabbling in open source because the most prominent voices were revolutionaries like RMS, who have a definite anti-commercial-software attitude. It was something that no company could really afford to be seen encouraging, despite what us ordinary people were doing.
The BSDs and the non-FSF open source types like Raymond deserve much more credit for making open source seem compatable with business.
--
Forward, retransmit, or republish anything I say here. Just don't misquote me.
Oops... Pretty funny too. =)
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
Sure. Anything under a BSD license is good too. The snag is that a BSD-style license allows people to include the code in proprietary products.
:-)
There is a reason, after all, that the FSF designed the GPL.
The GPL does not, and can not deprive one from selling one's own creation. It can do even less to deprive a third party from selling your creation
Looks to me like "through your written words, you've completely reversed the meaning of the thought you seem to be trying to convey." Since it can do even less to deprive a third part from selling your creation (your own words), and that third party only has to press CD's and make pretty boxes, rather than actually spending a significant amount of time developing code, doesn't it stand to reason that that third part will make a lot more money off of your creation than you will. Especially if they're more well known than you are, and are better at "adding value" through things like pretty boxes or recognizable logos. Case in point: Red Hat vs Joe Linux Developer.
How much free software have you actually paid for? Now how much of that money went to the developers, and not to a distributor? Should software developers really have to beg for donations (like the FSF) when they're contributing something useful?
While I think open source and free software are great in many ways (which is why I've worked on several projects), this isn't a world where most developers can actually make a reasonable living by writing "free software" full time. Yes, RMS would love people to make money writing GPL'ed software. The problem is that no-one has come up with a business model for open source that's viable for developers (as opposed to distributors). RMS likes to claim that GPL doesn't stop you from selling your software. No it doesn't stop you, not dirrectly. It makes it pretty damn impractical though.
Nononono. hit Katz with the bus. forget about RMS.
I think you trolleth. If you can't cope with the sentiment of his mail as expressed particular in the closing paragraph,r eedom.html.) Nonetheless we can't approve of confusing the public about what their basic criteria are. The facts of the situation are complex enough; confusing the issue is not welcome.
.|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,
In the Free Software Movement, we disagree with the Open Source Movement about basic philosophy and values. (For more explanation, see http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-f
then you really should get back in your little commercial box.
~Tim
--
~Tim
--
Rushing on down to the circle of the turn
What the hell? There are 7 comments on this story and already all that I hear are complaints about RMS complaining too much, or whining too much, etc... etc... etc... What is wrong with you people? Although I agree it may sometimes appear like this man is an extremist, that is what it takes to move and motivate a movement! If it were not for his zeal and his amazing drive, we would all still be using commercial software, without the source, without any hope of openness, without ANYTHING.
A lot of people feel that the movement has gotten to the point where we can now sit back, and that all of the benefits of an open software / free software world will come to us... we have not even begun to scratch the surface! Attitudes have barely changed, we do NOT live in a society where the average IT person understand the concept of free software (be it beer or speech!) We need someone to be a constant reminder, an unwavering word that reminds us that this fights isn't just about having the k-radest desktop at the office, or how fast our website is on Apache/Linux as compared to IIS/NT. It's about the freedom to chose, it's about the freedom to modify and to understand. It's about the freedom to not be tied to one vendors word, one commercial, closed, propietary solution. Yeah, he may sound like he is complaining and whining... it's because a great many people are getting lazy, fat, and complacent... and he sees this, and he will not give up, and he will not stop reminding us what the ideals were all about.
You don't have to follow what he says. For that matter, you're free to not listen to anybody. You're free to take the source to the linux kernel and start your own OS project. You can do whatever you want to do. That's one of the whole thrusts of free software in general.
The fact that he has written more software than you and I combined will ever write suggests that you don't have to care about or follow what he says, but it might be a good idea to listen. RMS is the reason why you're here spouting this on slashdot, since this site was written by a person influenced by his software and running on Debian GNU/Linux.
He's not any "better" than you or I - but you shouldn't simply dismiss him just because it's currently en vogue in the slashdot community to put Stallman down.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.
-- H. L. Mencken
open-source is becoming increasingly polluted.
Right on brother. Not many people see this, but it is happening. I think one of the major points where it started was with the APSL. Sure, it's been renegotiated, and we're told everything is getting better, but in the end effect, open source is about popularity. In that respect, it's succeeding quite well.
People still wonder about why RMS is so sore about Open source - it's because they have dissimilar goals. Open source and ESR is all about "world domination" and popularity. Sure, they're fun, but if you have to bastardize what got you to that point for that popularity, it isn't worth it IMHO. I was a happy linux user before open source was popular, and I'll be a happy user whether or not it's popular. Well, I may not be so happy in a few years when linux gets flooded with pseudo-open source garbage that trades popularity for freedom.
-- Truth goes out the door when rumor comes innuendo. -- Groucho Marx
Like the subject says, he's right. There are restrictions that simply don't work for this software to be either "open" or "free". Frankly for everything I've needed Motif like support for, Lesstif has worked just fine. Some people may think that Motif and Lesstif are both ugly, and so this doesn't matter, because they aren't going to use it anyhow. Thats fine. But someone who accepts the liscense just by using the software and happens to include it in something that it shouldn't be included with could get in trouble. "Free" and "Open" software means just that. I say, "Hey, I wrote this, and you can use it, change it, and distribute it, just leave this declaration that I wrote this, here,and include it with anything that might include this source code." Thats open. Thats free. Thats not what the Motif liscense says.
I like motif. GTK and QT are both slow bloatware.
Though I haven't seen many benchmarks comparing Motif to Qt and GTK, it has been my experience having worked with Motif and Qt that Qt seemed noticeably faster and fit in a smaller memory footprint than Motif. At the time I attributed it to Qt being written on top of Xlib rather than on top of sucky Xt like Motif is. Who knows what the real story is (has anyone seen any true benchmarks yet)? Either way, I really liked the ease of being able to develop your own customized widgets in Qt... this ease is something Motif undeniably lacks.
Back to the topic at hand though, I believe RMS has a point, and that this seems like a last ditch attempt to save a dying toolkit. Just my two cents worth though.
"Computer Science is no more about computers than astronomy is about telescopes." - E.W. Dijkstra
natalie
--Hail Mary, for she has the largest shotgun of them all.--
(Because TOG has ackmowledged that they were aware of the problem, and chose to ignore it, they would not be able to plead innocence or accidental transgression.)
As for RMS, personally I think he does the best job any Free Software advocate could do. Look at what he has achieved! The GNU utilities are as good as any commercial package. His philosophy inspired Linus Torvalds to release Linux under the GPL. (Operating Systems are two a penny. But Linux has taken off in a way NOT ONE OTHER OS has achieved. Even DOS/Windows had to reach v7 before anybody really took it seriously.)
IMHO, Richard Stallman may tread on a few toes, both in the "commercial" and "free" worlds. But, frankly, those are probably toes that needed to be stepped on.
Just because you use a product, that does not make you an advocate of it. (Most people drive cars. Does that make them advocates of pollution and acid rain?)
Just because you're an advocate, that does not mean you believe what you say. (Theologists have known that one for years.)
IMHO, RMS not only uses his beliefs, and professes his beliefs, but he actually does believe them! Whether you agree with his conclusions or not, you must agree that he's a very rare kind of person, merely because he is honest and up-front.
(Also IMHO, but irrelevent to the rest of the post, society has no long-term future, unless it adopts RMS' principles across society. Most psychology and self-help groups have reached the same conclusion. Even the more liberal religions have accepted virtually all of RMS' principles as essential to survival. You think you can do any better?)
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Well, I may not be so happy in a few years when linux gets flooded with pseudo-open source garbage that trades popularity for freedom.
All the more reason to use Debian GNU/Linux. One of Debian's priorities is to keep GPL clean, guaranteeing in truly Free Operating System. This is exactly the reason that Debian is dumping KDE by the side of the road: distributing KDE binaries would be a breach of GPL due to a licencing glitch.
In the current Linux world, where I see more and more distros go more and more commercial, I'm really glad there's at least one distribution that stays true to its source (yes, pun intended). This is probably part of the reason why I'm so mysteriously attracted to Debian. Its packaging system and great abundance of packages are two other charms, ofcourse, but the fact that it's truly Free is also a large part of it.
)O(
the Gods have a sense of humour,
Never underestimate the power of stupidity
To err is human, to moo bovine
While I agree with what RMS says, I want to ask: who cares? Motif is dying anyway. I have not seen a single *new* product that is being developed using Motif. It is still being used, but only in old apps that are still being maintained. All *new* apps use either GTK or QT. So, in a few years Motif will die its natural death anyway. Who cares that they changed the license? Nobody's gonna use it anyway, so I don't see what the fuss is all about.
___
___
If you think big enough, you'll never have to do it.
I think his views are a bit extreme, but he is free to have them...
My definition of Open Source is if I get the source, it is open. For Free software it is even easier. If I don't have to pay for it, it is free. Does it matter what the license says? Not really. For most of the restictions, I wouldn't be doing that anyway.
Just take what you can get and enjoy it.
FunkyDemon
No company should be asked to spend a significant sum of money on (essentially) an unfinished product. You don't buy a car that has no engine.
IMHO, your licence is therefore "unfit for the purpose for which it was obtained". Whilst computer software is exempt from this, under the "Digital Millenium Copyright Act", the licence, and the legal process by which it was obtained, is not.
I suggest you ask for a refund.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The Final RMS Solution
RMS is a plague upon the linux-using community. his ancient ideals have proved dangerous to our cause. Yet, RMS ignores our pleas to quietly step aside and let a more palatable individual take up the cause.
Only the harshest of measures will be successful in relieving us of this hemorrhoidal tissue, better known as Richard M. Stallman. Here is my plan, which I will tentatively title "Preparation-H."
RMS is well known for his liberal/communist leanings. We will first convince him that his presence is requested at the Kyrgyz-Russian Slavic University to discuss how Free Principles may save the wretched Russian economy. RMS will accept this invitation like a horny Slashdotter invited to Natalie Portman's birthday party.
Of course, RMS will NEVER make it to the university. We will arrange a limosine to take him to the airport, a luxury even his fat, liberal ass couldn't pass up. The limosine will be "hijacked" (but not really, since the limosine was paid for by us anyway). We will extract RMS' white, quivering flesh from the back seat, throw it in a black trash bag and haul it to Alaska.
We will convince RMS that we are environmental activists and we have come to Alaska to save the whales. RMS will see a better publicity opportunity in doing this and gladly forget about the University lecture. With our promises of sexual favors and FREE money, RMS will agree to do whatever we ask of him.
We make RMS disrobe. We must wear protective aparatii for this process. Once RMS is naked, we will beat him over the head with a seal-club and carve the fat off of his sweating carcass.
We will take the raw RMS fat and distribute it to poor Eskimos to use as lamp-oil, thus "saving the whales" as we promised.
Once RMS is out of the way, we can adopt a NEW leader! A leader more palatable to the public! A leader that will put a pretty face on our cause! A leader that EVERY Slashdotter can look up to!
Who is this leader? Natalie Portman, of course.
thank you.
i like german girls. and nannies.
Ok the licence is only for certain OSes. They wrote it they can have that restriction. To say they cannot have that restriction is kinda like some strange philosophical paradox. "Your restrictions are not as good as mine even though the software is yours to do as you see fit." That is pretty weak.
As far as the LINUX/gnu distributions are concerned: I noticed that many have the commercial software on either a seperate disk or noted on their installs that they are commercial apps. They are not merely "comingled" or whatever. I felt that was actually a swipe at other LINUX/gnu distributions rather than Motif - two complaints for one.
=Ron
When we have all those pretty Gtk+ widgets ?...
Karma cannot be described by words alone.
Hmm, this smells similar to something M$ would try. Kerbos maybe...hehe.
Maybe they should target the winblows side, the people on that side are more gullible.
Not that I'm an expert or anything. Just found the thought similar...
If ignorance is bliss, the world is full of blissful people