"Open Source" Motif

[Martin Schulze]

J.H.M. Dassen (Ray) wrote:
> TOG have released Motif under an "Open Source" license which isn't. (See
> also /. coverage at http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=00/05/15/1229207 )
> 
> Quoting http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/license/:
> >"Open Source" programs mean 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.
> 
> But on http://www.opengroup.org/openmotif/ they do link to the OSD which has
> the real definition of "Open Source".
> 
> >The rights granted under this license are limited solely to distribution
> >and sublicensing of the Contribution(s) on, with, or for operating systems
> >which are themselves Open Source programs
> 
> Which puts it in the same category as Qt v1: not DFSG-free, free or Open
> Source.
> 
> Someone feel like getting them to change their license or their terminology?

Additionally:

   Entgegen den Aussagen im Artikel wird Motif NICHT OpenSource, zumindest
   nicht im Sinne von OSI. Siehe die Frage im FAQ:

   QUESTION:
   Does the Open Group Public License for Motif meet the Open Source
   Guidelines?

   ANSWER:
   No. The Open Group Public License for Motif grants rights only to use
   the software on or with operating systems that are themselves Open
   Source programs. In restricting the applicability of the license to
   Open Source platforms this does not meet term 8 of the Open Software
   Definition (http://www.opensource.org/osd.html).

(I don't know where that FAQ is, it's a quote from
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/forum/go.shtml?read=1&msg=4&g=20000515odi000

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
All language designers are arrogant.  Goes with the territory...
	-- Larry Wall

Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.