Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!emory!gatech!purdue!haven!uvaarpa!murdoch!astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@astsun9.astro.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Rms says: Motif vs open look, a trend?
Message-ID: <1991Feb20.050945.5815@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 20 Feb 91 05:09:45 GMT
References: <8536@mitech.com> <1991Feb9.000821.5554@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <21686@yunexus.YorkU.CA>
Sender: usenet@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Organization: Department of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 20

In article <21686@yunexus.YorkU.CA> oz@yunexus.yorku.ca (Ozan Yigit) writes:

>>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and
>>no source? He finds a bug, someone on the net provides a source-code
>>fix, and then he has to wait 6 months for the vendor to ship him a
>>fixed binary.
>
>what about the poor sod who buys a Wizz-Bang X Box that includes X and
>no source? He goes and gets the X source from someone on the net.

Did I say the source for this particular port is available? Tell me,
is that generally true? No. The way the X copyright works, it doesn't
have to be. So you can be screwed. If X were GPLed, then it would be.

>In this discussion, ``ideal'' is strictly relative to the amount of
>verbosity stuffed into one's strawman. [But you knew that already.]

It helps if you understand the point I was attempting to make. I gave
an example to contest the claim that "pure PD is always better than
GPL". It's not.