Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
X GUI

RMS On 'Open' Motif 154

Posted by CmdrTaco from the its-just-not-good-enough dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

RMS on 'Open' Motif More

RMS on 'Open' Motif

Comments Filter:
  • 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.
  • Hate to be really pedantic, but RMSs behaviour is closer to socialism than communism. 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.

    Essentially, if you get off your arse, you get 'standing' (Sounds a bit like the whole online-community to me).

    darkewolf

  • If TOG acknowledges the OpenMotif license does not meet the OSI definition, but changes it to limit OpenMotif to operating systems that do meet the OSI definition, then won't including OpenMotif in an OS distribution then make it an non-OSI-compliant OS and illegal to include OpenMotif?

    (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.

    "Eat me."
    No thanks, I have a sense of taste.
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

  • Actually, to be picky, RMS doesn't have anything to do with Open Source if he can help it. Read the Philosophy [gnu.org] 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...
  • Apparently quite a few companies have spent quite a lot of money on Motif development and they'd like to see that investment continue to be worth something. If everyone universally starts writing GTK or QT apps, Motif will lose its value.
    The problem is that "value," in this situation, is a distinctly ambiguous thing.
    • Are we talking about the value of the cash flows from selling Motif license?

      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.

    • Are we talking about the value of license fees from existing software that uses Motif?

      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.

    • Another possibility is that the companies want to produce more new Motif software.

      I'm really not sure where the value lies in that case; perhaps others can theorize more usefully.


  • 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

  • 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)

  • 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.

  • Why? (Score:3)

    by AstroJetson ( 21336 ) <`gmizell' `at' `carpe-noctum.net'> on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:28AM (#1022756) Homepage
    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....
  • 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.)
  • 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.
  • The open source guidelines specify that there has to be no discrimination against a particular area or endeavor of work

    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 :(
  • First, RMS is right. The license is kind of screwy, and the whole situation is just the Open Group trying to salvage a toolkit that not many people care about any more.

    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. =)

  • (In your text you don't even bother to mention whom you're attacking; I'll assume it's Stallman)

    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 [gnu.org] 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 [fsf.org] and always seem to find their way to Slashdot.

    --

  • Correlation between liking Motif and license? (Score:5)

    by AJWM ( 19027 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @06:05AM (#1022764) Homepage
    On a quick read of the above messages, there seems to be a fairly high correlation between one's opinion of Motif and one's opinion of the OpenMotif license. Those that think the license sucks seem (with exceptions) to also think that Motif is ugly, dead, etc. Well, they obviously aren't going to use it anyway, so who cares what they think?

    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:


    "they have not made Motif available within the free software community; instead, they have invited the people in the free software community to leave the community by using Motif." -- RMS

    This is where he's wrong. To that part of the free software community that only uses free software, Open Motif is indeed free in all senses. It's only if folks have already chosen to leave the free software community by using a non-free OS that OpenMotif becomes non-free.


    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.

  • If you look at the number of times the word "Open" is used, in different contexts, and with substantially different meanings, on the OpenMotif web pages, it's quite blatant that there's a big spin job going on.

    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.)

  • What he ment was that if you compile your GPL-ed stuff together with any other piece of software, that piece of software should be opened up also: A (gpl-ed) is connected with B (closed/other license). If B is compiled with A, you HAVE TO open up B because that's what the GPL states.

    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.
    --

  • 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.
  • 666? very interesting....


    --------
  • 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!
  • Check this page out:

    http://www.gnu.org/p hilosophy/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses [gnu.org]

    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.

  • Re:Amazing backlash! (Score:3)

    by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @06:13AM (#1022772) Homepage
    One other question for the crowd: Why is it that people obessed with making money are never called zealots?


    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.

  • I didn't find a problem with the Open Group's license for Motif. It seemed to be a bastardized GPL that only let people use it on other Open Source platforms. Big deal.

    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....

    ---------------------------------

  • 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.
  • <Paranoid>
    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>

  • ... and wants to destroy your right to sell the fruits of your labor (if you write software, that is.)

    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.

  • Re:Er, this is RMS here (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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 he was saying in terms of dogma. He's right, too... Malcom X was much louder and harsher, if you will, with his message than MLK. RMS is much louder and harsher than ESR. This harshness is not a bad thing.

    I think ESR means well, but that RMS is sadly right. Without things such as the copyleft, giant [microsoft.com] soulless [netscape.com] corporations [sun.com] 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.

  • 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.
  • It does not discriminate against closed-source software in matters of
    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.
  • 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.

    Actually no, if you wrote some software and released it under the GPL, there is no reason you can't link your own software against Motif and distribute it under some other license. What you can't do is link someone else's GPL'd code to Motif. As long as you do not add copyrighted and GPL'd code written by other people (such as the Linux kernel, which has contributions from thousands of individuals and/or companies) you can relicense your own code under non-GPL terms. The GPL is non-revocable to people you have already given copies of your software to. You could also give any other kind of license to them if you own the software.

    Out of curiosity, what code have you written?
  • The open source guidelines specify that there has to be no discrimination against a particular area or endeavor of work

    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 :-). 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.)

    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.
  • Cheapbytes.com baby!

  • 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!

  • 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.

    Feh. Microsoft tactics.

  • Debian's core package set consists only of packages that are under the GPL or have licenses which are compatible with the GPL. This is done so they can say "Okay, all of Debian is GPL or equivalent." There also exists a (surprisingly large) collection of pacakges which do not comply with the GPL and as such are distributed under the "non-free" and "contrib" package collections. XV is part of the non-free collection, and I use that fairly often. At this point the only way that the KDE/Qt/TrollTech license mess can be worked out, as I understand it, is for Debian to only distribute KDE as source code because of a clash between the two licenses.

    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.
  • Motif is pretty bad, [...] I've never tried coding any Motif apps,

    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

    The GTK+ converter converts existing GTK+ themes to a resource file. The Motif Theme engine will be kicked off if a special resource is set. The Motif Theme Engine will read the Motif Theme (the converted GTK+ theme) and then be applied to the Motif user interface. This should all work with no changes to the API or the application itself.

    Phase 2
    Once Phase 1 becomes stable, phase 2 will be to merge the GTK+ theme converter in with the Motif Theme Engine and dynamically apply the theme.

    To simplify this process and minimize memory/cpu resources longer term, we have suggested an addition to the GTK+ API to allow us to extract the theme (this API would also be useful for GTK+ theme editors in general).


    They also plan to do something similar for Qt 2.0.
  • I recall a thread going around that the Open Group might try something like this as a last ditch attempt to stem the flood of programmers leaving for GTK and QT. Apparently quite a few companies have spent quite a lot of money on Motif development (Amazing that with all those resources they still managed to produce such a crappy product) and they'd like to see that investment continue to be worth something. If everyone universally starts writing GTK or QT apps, Motif will lose its value.

    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...

  • While agreeing with you fully I'd like to point out that it was just a joke...

    Conscience is the inner voice which warns us that someone may be looking.

  • 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.
  • 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.
  • The answer is probably the value of the programmers who are left who can program in Motif. Maybe add a little NIH syndrome and a little We Still Have Some Authority and stir liberally.

    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.

  • 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)

  • Debian's core package consists only of packages that are under the GPL or have licenses which are compatible with the GPL.

    Not quite; well actually you're probably right, depending on which meaning of the word "compatible" you're using. Debian-main only has stuff which is (a) free [debian.org], and (b) they can legally distribute. You can't take source from any two arbitrary programs in debian-main and create a derivative work which you can legally redistribute; e.g. gnuplot and LaTeX. This is unfortunate, but neccessary if you're going to allow software which is free but happens to be legally uncombinable with something else.


    The problem the Debian people see with KDE is it's just such a combination. GPLed code, linked to QPLed code. (Most, but not all, of the GPLed code was written by people who clearly intended it to be used with Qt but didn't write a "you may use this with Qt" clause).

  • the BIOS in almost any motherboard ... is NOT open source.

    True, but it's not [normally] used by Linux after boot-up.


    Nor is the firmware in the hard drive, ..., the SCSI controller, ...

    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?

  • To the part of the free software community that only uses free software, Open Motif is indeed free in all senses.

    The Open Group don't think it's open-source software, according to the guy in the press release a few days ago. It's got auto-termination clauses in which make it un-free.
  • Just look at Microsoft's definition of "open source": "If you're a registered Windows developer who pays us lots of money, and we don't have a reason to dislike you, and you sign a non-disclosure agreement that prevents you from telling anyone about it or using it for anything other than Windows applications, we'll show you selected parts of our source code, but not enough that you could actually compile anything."

    --

  • 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.

    As sources, there'd indeed be nothing wrong. The problem comes when you compile KDE. The KDE binaries would have to be distributed under GPL, but QT, which is then part of it, isn't, and thus you have a breach of licence if you distribute the binaries. And that's where the problem lies.

    I'm absolutely sure the Debian developers would love to include KDE in Debian, even if it were in non-free, but by including it they would be breaking GPL. But that discussion is currently going on in a completely different thread here on /. :)


    )O(
    the Gods have a sense of humour,
  • Anything which is Open Source is also Free Software. Don't believe me, read the definitions for yourself. The OSD is an expanded and clarified definition of the Free Software definition which can be seen at the FSF pages. Any license or software that meets the definitions of Open Source will also meet those enumerated by the FSF, without exception.
  • TOG contacted me some time before the release of Motif. They said they were releasing un-named software and showed me the license. At that time, I asked them to make it entirely compliant with the OSD, and they said they could not do so yet. So, we agreed on FAQ language that explicitly stated the software was not Open Source.

    I wasn't aware that they "redefined" Open Source and would have objected to that.

    Frankly, I don't think Motif is all that relevant these days, given the progress on GNOME/GTK and KDE/Qt. Thus, given their expressed intention to make it Open Source eventually, I don't think there's much point in having a big to-do about it now.

    Thanks

    Bruce

  • Motif Sauce Rools (Score:3)

    by GC ( 19160 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @07:10AM (#1022810)
    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!
  • 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.

    He does no such thing. Releasing software under the GPL gives Stallman no rights whatsoever to your code, unless you assign copyright to him or to some group in which he has influence (such as the FSF). He cannot, and does not, try and prevent you from using Motif with your program. If you wish to do so, go ahead (although you may want to explicitly give permission to link with Motif for those OSes that don't ship Motif as standard). The only possible influence he could have is from the clause stating that software may be relicensed under future versions of the GPL, which he will naturally influence. If you don't like that clause (clause 9), remove it. Simple, really.

  • 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.
  • Does anyone know of a non-GPL based product ... under an acceptable license?

    Yes, plenty of them [gnu.org] 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 Open Source Initiative accepted it. However that doesn't count for much, they aren't very rigorous in their scrutiny of licences, having accepted the APSL 1.1 which contains a termination clause.

    But RMS and the Debian people accepted the QPL too. It's a pretty bad free licence, but free nonetheless. At least if you ignore the worrying mumbo-jumbo about what you may use the software for.

    It would have been much better if Troll Tech had just not mentioned usage in the licence. After all, it doesn't need to be in there, if you own a copy of some information you are normally free to use it how you wish (other than making more copies).

    The old Qt Free Edition licence was definitely not free, even the OSI people agreed on that. It was one of the reasons why GNOME got started.
  • Being GPL compatible is not one of Debians requirements on the packages in main, DFSG [debian.org]-compliance is. As an example, Qt2 [debian.org] is included in Potato/main since the QPL meets the requirements of the DFSG, but (according to Debian) it isn't GPL-compatible.

    zerblat uses Debian.

  • Do you guys even know how to read? Let alone think for yourselves.

    The QPL is indeed an official Open Source license. In fact, it was declared Open Source long before the OSI got lazy about licenses. Check it out at www.opensource.org.

    Furthermore, the FSF and RMS consider the QPL to be a Free Software license. Don't believe me, read about it at www.gnu.org.

    If you are so skeptical that you won't even believe RMS, ESR and BP, then get yourself a copy of the OSS definition, the Free Software definition, and a copy of the QPL, and READ IT FOR YOURSELF!
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • Pedantics aside, the Open Source movement sprung from a so-called realistic faction of developers who were turned off by RMS's stridency with regard to ensuring that software remained free. So yes, you are correct, but both free software and Open Source software both share the same philosophical roots.

    Most people are aware of the differences but there are folks who feel the chasm is subtle enough to ignore. Maybe I should have in fact suggested they contact Bruce Perens who has become the voice of reason (sorry ESR) of the Open Source movement.

  • 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.

  • Hey, they redefined Open Source and they didn't even ask us (OSI), so why do you think they would have bothered to ask RMS? At least they're plan to remove their redefinition of Open Source, so there's hope that they'll eventually open source the whole thing.
    -russ
  • I'm not saying people shouldn't use it. I'm saying that people
    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.
  • Please note that he's not being a pedant here. Similar in position to defending a trademark,everything he says about the Motif licensing is true. Itis incompatible with the philosophies of the FSF, and the term open-source is becoming increasingly polluted.

    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..

  • 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
  • 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.
  • >Everyone pretty much agrees that the QPL is not an open source license

    Except RMS, who calls it Free Software [gnu.org]. Try the occasional bit research once in a while. Or feel free to weasel out and say you were referring to QPL 1.0

  • Usage restrictions unacceptable? (Score:4)

    by Ed Avis ( 5917 ) <ed@membled.com> on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:14AM (#1022859) Homepage
    * The license is restricted to use on certain operating systems, those which fit a category they call "open source". Both the Free Software Movement and the Open Source Movement consider use restrictions unacceptable.

    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.

  • He's got a point with this one... (Score:4)

    by Millennium ( 2451 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:14AM (#1022861)
    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 [debian.org] and the Open-Source Definition. [opensource.org] 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.
  • PST = Pre-Structured Technology.

    This particular PST in question is known fully as CDEnext/Motifnext PST. It was set up in ~95 to fund the development of CDE/Motif 2.1

    The members of the Motifnext PST are Sun, HP, IBM, Compaq(Digital), Novell, Fujitsu and Hitachi. SGI are a financial sponsor---and no I don't know what that really means.

    ETC = Don't know...Executive Technology Council?

    This much smaller group (3 members) was responsible for the the original funding of OSF and Motif 1.x. They own Motif up until the Motifnext PST agreement ends, at which point the funders (?) of Motifnext get ownership.

    There I think I've got all that right (probably not), but I doubt you'll get a better answer unless we have an avid Open Group Legal readership. Just my understandings, not an SGI opinion.

  • 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.

    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.


    --

  • "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.

    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

  • Who TF is 'Stalling'?

    I think you trolleth. If you can't cope with the sentiment of his mail as expressed particular in the closing paragraph,
    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-fr 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.
    then you really should get back in your little commercial box.
    ~Tim
    --
    .|` Clouds cross the black moonlight,

  • Motif is pretty bad, and it being closed didn't help either.

    I can't talk from a developer standpoint as I've never tried coding any Motif apps, but I find GTK to be pretty easy to work with, it's not as ugly as Motif, then ontop of things GTK is themeable, and open.

    Motif just simply got out-classed.

    -- iCEBaLM

  • Amazing backlash! (Score:4)

    by ilkahn ( 6642 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:15AM (#1022876) Homepage
    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.

  • Re:Er, this is RMS here (Score:3)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:16AM (#1022877)
    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.

  • Re:Before the inevitable Stallman bashing starts . (Score:5)

    by Uruk ( 4907 ) on Tuesday June 06, 2000 @04:20AM (#1022879)
    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.

  • 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:

    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?

  • First off, I am afraid I don't accept the Open Group's "explanation" of the licence and its flaws. Sure, everyone gets tired, after a while, but you don't pay lawyers to do a rush-job. You pay them to be sure of the legalities. And as "Open Source" is a trademarked term, with a defined meaning, the legality of the "Open Motif"'s statements are definitely questionable. The Open Group is treading on THIN ice, here, and could be legitamately sued by ESR, et al.

    (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?)

  • 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,
  • As to whether he has hurt of helped commercial open source, well, let's face it, that's not his bag :) 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 ;)

    Well said. There are plenty of people forwarding the cause of commercial OSS. I just posted in the last article that I don't use Debian, but I'm glad there is a distro that is remaining "pure." It's also a good thing that Debian and the commercial distro's are able to co-exist. There's a sort of parallel between free software and open source software as well. I'm glad there are both.

    Whether RMS is a purist, extremist, zealot, or all of the above, I feel that it's a good thing that he's around. He continually draws our attention towards an ideal--the people that whine about him should be learning from him though not necessarily agreeing with him. As history has already shown, it's people like RMS that lead people away from the ruts we get into.

    In the meantime, I'm still learning from RMS and ESR while not being in complete agreement with either.

    One other question for the crowd: Why is it that people obessed with making money are never called zealots?

    numb
  • Either way, if your lawyers are going to spend ages over the legalese, but do a rush-job of putting the whole thing together, the companies involved would be advised to seek other legal firms for such work, in future.

    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.

Slashdot Top Deals

As you will see, I told them, in no uncertain terms, to see Figure one. -- Dave "First Strike" Pare

Close