Path: utzoo!censor!geac!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!mips!sgi!shinobu!odin!westworld.esd.sgi.com!erik
From: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: OpenWindows Source Facts
Keywords: rumors
Message-ID: <1990Nov21.220000.24005@odin.corp.sgi.com>
Date: 21 Nov 90 22:00:00 GMT
References: <3137@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>
Sender: news@odin.corp.sgi.com (Net News)
Reply-To: erik@westworld.esd.sgi.com (Erik Fortune)
Organization: Silicon Graphics Inc.
Lines: 49

[ sorry if this went out twice.  news is being weird ]

In article <3137@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM>, naughton@wind.Eng.Sun.COM (Patrick Naughton) writes:
>The source it NOT freely copiable... it is licensed for free, but the
>licensee may not redistribute the source... or make it available via
>ftp, etc...
>
>The source is free, but you must buy the documentation and media
>directly from a Sun distributor to get it.  The $995 barely covers our
>costs for producing and distributing the over 40 lbs of docs, not to
>mention the cost of administering this release process.  And once
>you've paid this money you have an unlimited site license and "Right To
>Use" agreement on all of the source.
Oh goody.  A new definition for "free."   I was getting tired of
the old one anyway...

>To be eligible for a license you must fit one of these four categories:
>
> o) SPARC archictecture hardware vendor.
> o) SVR4 licensee.
> o) non-unix platform developer (Amiga, MacOS, etc).
> o) NeWS lisceneee prior to Oct, 1987.
A new definition for "Open" too.  How quaint.

>Hardware vendors may deliver OpenWindows binaries on their platform but
>must pay royalties to Sun at the following schedule:
>
>unit volume		royalty/unit
>0-500			$40
   (royalty info for "free" and "open" product deleted)
>500,000+		$5
>
>x-terminals are half price per seat.
This "free" release of "open" windows gets less free and less open every time
I hear about it.

Can anybody explain how this "free" and "open" release is any different (legally, 
not technically) from the "expensive" and "proprietary" release of Motif?  (Other
than the fact that *anybody* can get Motif for $1K -- none of this SVR4/sparc/non-unix
nonsense).

>Hope this clears some things up.
It certainly cleared up any questions I might have had.

-- Erik

Disclaimer:   Opinions my own, not SGI's.
              I'm OpenWindows and SPARC are trademarks or copyrights or something.
              Motif too, no doubt.