RMS on OpenMotif

[John Cowan]

I believe there is no reasonable dispute that OpenMotif, a licensed
version of Motif for use with open-source systems, is not itself
open source: it clearly steps on criteria 1, 8, and 9 of the OSD,
as the Open Group themselves concede.  RMS believes it is not free software,
either, and I think he is clearly right.  However, some of his comments
on it seem to me unjustified.

RMS writes (copied here under a claim of fair use):

> Here are some of the problems of the Motif license:
> 
>      It claims that you accept the license merely by "using" Motif. Only
>      a shrink-wrap license or something similar can do that, and shrink-wrap
>      licenses are a bad thing. 

I agree with this, except that I think (without some statutory confirmation
of the legitimacy of such licenses) that the reference to use is vacuous
and unenforceable here. (Of course IANAL.)

>      The license is restricted to use on certain operating systems, those
>      which fit a category they call "open source". Both the Free Software
>      Movement and the Open Source Movement consider use restrictions
>      unacceptable. 

This is the main reason why the Motif license is not open source, but then
it is called OpenMotif, not OpenSourceMotif.

>      Ironically, that restriction excludes nearly all the commercial GNU/Linux
>      distributions. They typically include some non-free software--an
>      unfortunate policy--and hardly any of them fits the criterion specified
>      in the Motif license. 

The OpenMotif licensing FAQ clarifies that the reference is to the
*kernel* of the operating system only, without regard to bundled utility
programs.  All known Linux and BSD distros clearly meet this requirement.
Although the FAQ is not part of the license, it definitely goes to show
the licensor's intent.

>      Their definition of the term "open source" is very different from the
     one used by the Open Source Movement, thus causing confusion.

Similarly, the FAQ explicitly states an intent to conform to the OSD.  
The definition as given in the license is "software for which the source code
is available without confidential or trade secret restrictions, and for
which the source code and object code are available for distribution
without license charges".  This is clearly less restrictive than the OSD,
amounting to criteria 1 and 2 only. Nevertheless,
there are probably in practice no kernels which conform to this definition
but not to the OSD.

Someone might want to make a snapshot of the FAQ as it currently stands,
in case it becomes necessary in a court test which hinges on the
interpretation of the license.

OpenMotif license: http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/
RMS commentary: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motif.html
OpenMotif license FAQ: http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/faq.html

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
de rapport nyait pas.               -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"