Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!midway!uwvax!veronica.cs.wisc.edu!elliott
From: elliott@veronica.cs.wisc.edu (James Elliott)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.news
Subject: Re: OpenWindows Source Facts
Keywords: rumors
Message-ID: <11822@spool.cs.wisc.edu>
Date: 27 Nov 90 21:09:57 GMT
References: <3137@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> <488@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca>
Sender: news@spool.cs.wisc.edu
Lines: 23

In <488@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca> jtc@van-bc.wimsey.bc.ca (J.T. Conklin) writes:
>Never before have I seen a more deliberately misleading press
>announcement.  There is a huge difference between a $1000.00 source
>licence avaliable only to qualified licensees, and the product that
>was described in your announcement.

I quite agree. I'd been hoping that I'd be able to run NeWS on my
DECstation since I really prefer it to X an environment, and miss
having Suns around. But I'm an impoverished graduate student. I am
quite capable of installing free software off the network (without
tons of books) and using it to good advantage; I do this with a lot of
GNU and similarly-licensed software, and it greatly increases my
productivity. I was expecting to be able to do the same with
OpenWindows after reading that press announcement. Now it turns out
that I was completely misled and am stuck with X and S.O.L.

Sun has done some really nice things in the past in terms of sharing
source code. It doesn't sound like this is one of those times. Calling
this "free software" is really a slap in the face for those
organizations which >do< provide quality free software.
--
Jim Elliott		      "Like a bridge he'll come between us, not a wall"
elliott@veronica.cs.wisc.edu