Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!aplcen!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!swrinde!ucsd!ucbvax!hplabs!hplabsz!mayer
From: mayer@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM (Niels Mayer)
Newsgroups: comp.emacs
Subject: Re: Emacs with menus and buttons
Message-ID: <5527@hplabsz.HPL.HP.COM>
Date: 27 Jun 90 21:38:25 GMT
References: <9006270221.AA02832@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu>
Reply-To: mayer@hplabs.hp.com (Niels Mayer)
Organization: Hewlett-Packard Labs, Software & Systems Lab, Palo Alto, CA.
Lines: 51
Summary:
Expires:
Sender:
Followup-To:

In article <9006270221.AA02832@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes:
>If you are interested in working on x-related features, please plan
>on using only the free X facilities, and not proprietary software such
>as Motif.

While I'm usually the first person to criticize the OSF (on its
shoot-yerself-in-the-foot-licencing policies, technology compromises, and
general wanna-be-AT&T'ness) I would like to put on my HP hat for a moment
and mention that OSF/Motif is (or will be) a standard part of the Un*x OS
supplied by major computer industry players such as Hewlett-Packard,
HP/Apollo, DEC, IBM, MIPS, Data General, etc.  (apologies to ommitted
companies...)

With OSF/Motif becoming a defacto standard does the "proprietariness" of
OSF/Motif matter?? Afterall, gnuemacs runs on a number of proprietary unix
systems, as well DEC's proprietary VMS.  What's the difference between
linking in libXm.a and whatever proprietary unix libraries that gnuemacs
uses? None of those Un*xes and libraries fall under the gnu licencing
policies, and all follow various greed-oriented licencing policies that run
counter to the orientation of FSF.

It seems like the implicit policy in gnuemacs and other FSF software is to
support systems following defacto standards such that FSF software can run
on the widest variety of systems and be supported by the widest number of
people willing to hack/improve/contribute to the software effort.  Unix is
not free (yet) and this makes the "proprietary software" argument rather
fuzzy.

>X is an important piece of free software, so we (the FSF) can feel
>only alarm when attempts are made to supplant parts of it with
>proprietary software.  In effect, there is a danger that parts of X
>will cease to be free.  While the free toolkits and window managers
>would still exist, that would not count for much if they could not
>make actual X applications work.

IMHO, the free toolkits do not have sufficient functionality, lack good
documentation, have an ugly-look and feel, are incompatible with PM, etc.
W/r/t window managers, the only issue should be ICCCM-compliance (a rather
nebulous thing) because that is a standard for compatibility. It would be
silly to write even a motif application that won't work without the motif
window manager.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: I am not speaking as an HP representative. I'm not even
speaking for myself. The conspiracy is speaking for me. Yeah, that's it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
	    Niels Mayer -- hplabs!mayer -- mayer@hplabs.hp.com
		  Human-Computer Interaction Department
		       Hewlett-Packard Laboratories
			      Palo Alto, CA.
				   *