Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sun, 12 Jul 1998 20:07:49 -0700 (PDT) | From | Christopher Seawood <> | Subject | Re: Linus Speaks About KDE-Bashing |
| |
On Sun, 12 Jul 1998, George wrote:
> I think the issue here is that Motif has been the standrad GUI for just > about any unix for the past few years ...
I'm surprised this point still isn't clear to people. Whether Motif has been been the standard GUI for Unices is inmaterial to the GPL as applied to Linux. Motif only falls under the "normally distributed with the OS" clause of the GPL *if and only if* _your_ system is distributed with Motif. This exemption was fine before when it was fairly clear what defined as "distributed with the OS" since an OS was generally distributed by a single vendor. There is no clear definition of a "distribution" when it comes to the free OS distributions. Alan Cox has mentioned via IRC that at least one lawyer has stated that only the pieces distributed by maintainer of Linux (ie, Linus) fall under this exemption for Linux so both Motif & Qt are violations in this respect.
> we would have the same problem with motif I'd think, had it not been for > lesstif
The existence of Lesstif does not make using Motif(tm) (as distributed by the TOG, RedHat, etc) ok. It makes using the Motif API ok but nothing more. This is a subtle distinction that people tend to overlook (purposefully or not). Meaning that you cannot distribute GPL'd Motif applications under Linux just because Lesstif is available.
At this point, I'm in full agreement with Terry, we need to get this matter settled legally once and for all. Everyone has their own interpretation of the GPL and no single interpretation, including the FSF's, has any more weight than the other. Yes, the FSF's intent of the GPL can be considered important, but the GPL is sufficient vague enough that it might have different meanings in situations in which the FSF did not forsee. I will also pledge $100US to the legal fund to get all current issues with the GPL resovled. There are too many grey areas in the GPL that are only protected by the threat of legal action and bad publicity. If it were ever proven in a court of law that the legal interpretation of these grey areas contradicts what the FSF claims they are, the GPL will effectively become a useless license. It would be better to settle this "in-house" (local to the free software community) and roll out a GPLv3 that properly handles these issues than be unplesantly surprised later.
- cls
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.rutgers.edu Please read the FAQ at http://www.altern.org/andrebalsa/doc/lkml-faq.html
| |