Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!wuarchive!udel!haven.umd.edu!mimsy!mojo!stripes
From: stripes@eng.umd.edu (Joshua Osborne)
Newsgroups: comp.windows.x
Subject: Re: Some Very Basic Questions
Message-ID: <1991Jun5.115601.20270@eng.umd.edu>
Date: 5 Jun 91 11:56:01 GMT
References: <1991May15.174459.16463@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> <29086@hydra.gatech.EDU> <1991May24.203747.12363@smsc.sony.com>
Sender: news@eng.umd.edu (C-News)
Organization: College of Engineering, Maryversity of Uniland, College Park
Lines: 62

>ken@dali.cc.gatech.edu (Ken Seefried iii) writes:
[What is open-look?]
>|> Sun's equivalent to Motif.  Several implimentations.  Reasonable PD
>|> implimentation availible, unlike Motif.

In article <1991May24.203747.12363@smsc.sony.com> dce@smsc.sony.com (David Elliott) writes:
>Not PD.  Public Domain means that the copyright owner has given away
>all rights.  It XView was public domain, I could take it, put my name
>on it, and sell it without giving a cent to Sun, and they would have no
>legal recourse.

That is a proper definition of PD.

>As I understand it, I am allowed to obtain XView and build it on my
>system, but I am not allowed to sell it or bundle it with any
>products.

According to the LEGAL_NOTICE file in the 2.0 XView distribution there only
appear to be two limitations on the code:
 (1) If you want to call the resulting program "OPEN LOOK" compatible (this
 is apparently a trademarked term) you can not change the fonts, or icon
 glyphs "except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard 
 resolution of the screen or other output device".  The code may not be changed
 except "as authorized herein", and it must be inspected by AT&T and Bigelow &
 Holmes.     Fairly harsh, basicly if you want to be "OPEN LOOK" compatable
 you can't change the code, and it would be wise to leave the fonts and icons
 alone.  Still it is free, and a good reference.  Aside from that, do you
 really need to market your code as "OPEN LOOK" compatible?

 (2) Both the XView code and user documantion must contain copyright notices
 for Sun Microsystems, and Bigelow & Holmes.

In fact the notice states "[you are] granted a nonexclusive, royalty-free
copyright and design patent license to use this code in individual and
commercial software."  That is fairly clear, at least for a legal document.

>           I also believe that if I want to do so, it will cost as
>much as Motif does.

Not unless the price of Motif has dropped substantally, XView source is about
$1000 less expensiave (XView source costs $0, but you have to ftp it, or
get a friend to make a tape, or pay Sun around $200 for a tape).  The runtime
royalty cost on XView is about $40 less per product linked with it (i.e. no
runtime royalty).  The programmer enviroment is alot less (XView is free,
but I forget what Motif runs you for the .h and .a files only (no .c's),
$300? $500? $100?).

>In other words, it's free to end users, but not public domain.

Very correct.


As allways don't trust free legal advice from the net.  If you are going to
do anything substantial with XView you should get your own lawyer to look
over the legal notice.  However it is fairly clear, mabie just reading it
for yourself would do.  I donno, depends on how luck you feel :-)
-- 
           stripes@eng.umd.edu          "Security for Unix is like
      Josh_Osborne@Real_World,The          Multitasking for MS-DOS"
      "The dyslexic porgramer"                  - Kevin Lockwood
"CNN is the only nuclear capable news network..."
    - lbruck@eng.umd.edu (Lewis Bruck)