Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!news.cs.indiana.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!milo.mcs.anl.gov!atlantis.ees.anl.gov!korp
From: korp@atlantis.ees.anl.gov (Peter Korp)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: The real OpenWindows source announcement
Message-ID: <1990Nov18.173321.4619@mcs.anl.gov>
Date: 18 Nov 90 17:33:21 GMT
References: <1990Nov15.144507.22915@mcs.anl.gov> <7247@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> <16263@paperboy.OSF.ORG>
Sender: news@mcs.anl.gov
Distribution: comp.windows.news
Organization: Advanced Computer Application Center, Argonne National Laboratory
Lines: 29
Nntp-Posting-Host: atlantis.ees.anl.gov

In article <16263@paperboy.OSF.ORG> dbrooks@osf.org (David Brooks) writes:
>In article <7247@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU> ittai@shemesh.GBA.NYU.EDU (Ittai Hershman) writes:
>>To be fair, there are no royalties owed
>>to Sun for any derivative binaries, whereas Motif binaries are subject
>>to a royalty payment.
>
>No; this is from the Sun annoucement:
>
>   There are no royalties for distributing applications developed with
>   OpenWindows.  Hardware vendors will pay nominal royalties for systems
>   they resell that run the OpenWindows environment.
>
>This doesn't explicitly cover software operations that resell binaries
>with added value, but the above two cases are the same for Motif.

Yes this is true for Motif, but if we talk Open Look and Motif only then
this is somewhat misleading. Open Look, in the form of the XView toolkit
is free to all, no strings attached.

Now if you were just comparing OpenWindows with Motif I agree the policy seems
to be very similar. But if you do this comparison then you are comparing
apples to oranges.

>-- 
>David Brooks				dbrooks@osf.org
>Systems Engineering, OSF		uunet!osf.org!dbrooks
>"No, I didn't say I wanted a Bud light!!!" -- Oedipus

Peter