RMS on OpenMotif

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:

> >      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.

The FAQ is not part of the license; it's not a legal document, but
commentary upon the legal document.  Much as the hyperlinked explanations of
the NPL had no legal weight, the FAQ doesn't either.

> 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.

For terms not defined in the license (such as "operating system"), it would
be easy for whoever brought the lawsuit to argue that using the term
according to precedent -- i.e., as in the Microsoft vs. US case, which would
be everything on the CD from the kernel, to the DLLs of IE, to the IE app
itself -- rather than according to random documents.

IANAL, of course, but Judge Kaplan used the Microsoft vs. US case's
definition of operating system in the DeCSS case, and it seems reasonable
that such a high-profile case would be widely used for precedent.

 Matthew Weigel
 Programmer/Student
 weigel+ at pitt.edu