Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!yale!mintaka!spdcc!tauxersvilli!alphalpha!nazgul
From: nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Motif 1.1 shipping (please read this too)
Message-ID: <1990Sep3.164141.10316@alphalpha.com>
Date: 3 Sep 90 16:41:41 GMT
References: <9009011809.AA08100@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> <1990Sep2.154929.4599@alphalpha.com> <9B{%_8*@rpi.edu>
Organization: asi
Lines: 33

In article <9B{%_8*@rpi.edu> tale@turing.cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) writes:
>In <1990Sep2.154929.4599@alphalpha.com> nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley):
>
>   Before we all get into some inane flame war on this, [...]
>   Secondly, if they were to license it they certainly wouldn't do so
>   under the GNU license, since that would prohibit software vendors
>   from selling software that used Motif.
>
>You know, inane flame wars begin with just a simple piece of
>misinformation.

Okay, I overstated the problem.  A software vendor can sell software that
uses copylefted libraries.  If however, they ship it in binary form
(as opposed to just giving J. Random Secretary the source code)
they must also make their source code available and cannot restrict
the distribution of said source.  E.g. I can sell it to you, but you
can give it to everyone else.

If this is incorrect please let me know, as this is the number two reason
why I am not currently using GNU C++.

							-kee

(Number one is that we ran into too many bugs and support was too expensive.)

-- 
Alphalpha Software, Inc.	|	motif-request@alphalpha.com
nazgul@alphalpha.com		|-----------------------------------
617/646-7703 (voice/fax)	|	Proline BBS: 617/641-3722

I'm not sure which upsets me more; that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.