On Mon, 2006-08-21 at 12:50 +0200, Arjan van de Ven wrote: > > > > > As such I agree with Ralf that this is a > > > religious belief, not about "free software" per se. > > > > It's about the definition of free software, (or about the definition of > > fedora): > > > > * if the definition of free software is the OSI definition then > > openmotif isn't free software. > > * If fedora is only made of OSI compliant softwares then openmotif > > shouldn't be in fedora. > [*] It'd be interesting to find out why Red Hat added openmotif in the > first place, didn't they do a license audit at the time? ACK, dunno either, but I can tell you my argumentation: 1. RH-Linuxes are OSI-compliant. 2. RH doesn't charge royalty-fees in the traditional OSF/OpenGroup sense (In the past, the OSF charged per time/per seat licenses for OSF/Motif). 3. To be able to link applications against OpenMotif, they must apply an OSI-compliant license => All applications in RH/Fedora are supposed to be so. => Non-issues to RH. 4. The "royalty-fee clause" doesn't affect developers working on OSI-compliant Linux-packages. Conversely it actually helps OpenSource. Technically, at time when OSF/OpenGroup Motif went open source, Lesstif had not been close to be compatible to OpenMotif (It's Motif-1.x implementation had been rather usable, but the Motif-2.x implementation had not been much more than junk). Seeing Motif going open, had introduced a real relief to all OpenSource Motif developers and caused them to further on ignore Lesstif as "semi-functional toy junk". Ralf -- Fedora-maintainers mailing list Fedora-maintainers@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers -- Fedora-maintainers-readonly mailing list Fedora-maintainers-readonly@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-maintainers-readonly
