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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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.
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)
use, and closed source software writers are free to use insights
gleaned from looking at open source code.
Restrictions on use are really obnoxious.
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
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)
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?
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.
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?
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?
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"'
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
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.....
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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.
So, are you advocating that we don't listen to him, but that we should listen to you? The fact is, I've been able to learn a great deal from any number of people. Those who were smarter than me as well as those who were not. Those who hold higher standing in a particular community (most folks I'd reckon) and those who don't. I try not to dismiss anybody. Well, except maybe those who tell me to dismiss someone else......
carlos
--
As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.
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
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
Sorry, but Motif is a tool kit for making an application. It is not a WM. The things that we have that are close to Motif are the GTK and QT. Motif widgets are ugly, and they are slow. I think you are thinking about something else.
Molog
So Linus, what are we doing tonight?
So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
(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
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)