🚀 go-pugleaf

>>> On Tue, 30 Nov 1993 17:48:19 GMT, wolf@merlin.att.com (Thomas Wolf)
>>> said:

pcg> 1) There are complicated licensing issues that can cause problems
pcg> to you or to us, and that reduce the potential for usefulness and
pcg> widespread adoption of any free sw that depends on OSF/Motif.

Thomas> If the free software is distributed in source form, I don't see
Thomas> how these licensing issues could "cause problems" for the
Thomas> developer of the application (unless the distributed source
Thomas> included Motif headers or something.)

Dear sir, perhaps it would be interesting to note that free sw authors
make their sw free instead of proprietary sw they enjoy having their
creations as widely used and distributed as possible.

Given this rather reasonable assumption, many free sw authors would
rather, if at all possible, avoid restricting usage of their sw only to
those that have licensed a proprietary library.

As of now a free sw author doing a Motif dependant program restricts the
use of his program to those that have bought Motif in one way or
another; distribution of binaries, which are a very convenient form of
free sw distribution, and used to be possible without exceptions under
1.1.x, has become rather risky for all those involved.

pcg> [ ... use some alternative to OSF/Motif; some even have, BTW, a
pcg> Motif look&feel ... ]

Thomas> But it's probably also unrealistic.  I would venture to guess
Thomas> that most of the free software out there is written by folks who
Thomas> either already program professionally (developers) or hope to in
Thomas> the future (students).  These folks are very likely to be using
Thomas> (or learning to use) Motif, simply because it's become the
Thomas> "official" standard.  In their SPARE time, these good souls are
Thomas> willing to give back to the community by developing public
Thomas> domain software.

Frankly a lot of free sw authors, e.g. those in the US government, or
many of those at Universities, develop free sw full time.

Given this, and that in any case widespread adoption is a goal of many
free sw authors, warning them that by using Motif they seriously
restrict the popularity of their sw is useful. Making free sw depend on
proprietary technology is something that should be avoided, if
feasible. The ultimate judge of this is the author: to them to balance
the various issues. (besides OSF/Motif is, according to many, a poorly
done thing, and things like Tcl are also more interesting and a "better"
learning experience).

It is my concern that any prospective free sw author know the
consequences of using OSF/Motif; since runtime binary royalties is a
practice that has all but disappeared in recent years, I had myself not
even imagined that OSF/Motif requires them in many/most cases.

I was rather startled to learn of this, especially as this was
introduced as of release 1.2.x; I had even misread the date for the
release of 1.2.x as 93 instead of 92, when I looked it up, as I was
under the misconception that this was a rather recent development. Some
other people, who develop Motif applications routinely, were also
startled, 18 months after to fact, to realize that OSF had changed their
policy.

So, I am not trying to make the free sw authors work harder for me; I am
trying to make it very clear that if for whatever reason they choose
Motif a significant segment of their potential audience will not enjoy
their creations (until Notif is ready, if ever). To them the choice.