Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.windows.x Subject: Re: choice of toolkits Message-ID: Date: 14 Mar 91 17:17:32 GMT References: <9103131659.AA19248@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 32 In-reply-to: cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU's message of 13 Mar 91 16:59:52 GMT In article <9103131659.AA19248@zia.aoc.nrao.edu> cflatter@zia.aoc.nrao.EDU (Chris Flatters) writes: | One possibility would be for OSF to donate the Motif toolkit and mwm to | the GNU project. In fact this might be seen as a fair trade since OSF/1 | contains GNU software. In practice the vendors that supply Motif technology | to OSF will probably object to this. Similarly USL could donate OLIT | to the GNU project but might have some problem persuading their shareholders | (who think that USL should make a profit) that this is a good thing. Sigh..... It's splitting hares, but OSF/1 proper does not contain GNU software. The compiler suite that we use and support is shipped on a separate tape. It is up to the various companies buying source, to decide whether to use the GNU compilers, or come up with their own compiler suite. Some of the changes we've made are fed back to the FSF (about half of the compiler changes I made for instance). What gets fed back and incorporated depends on our time available, and the FSF's current interests/schedules. We've also done the work to allow our object file format to be used by the FSF if they want (or anybody else, since it has an X11 style copyright). Getting back to X11, in terms of Motif licensing issues, I have no opinion..... -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?