Date: Sun, 26 Mar 95 16:01:15 MST From: terry@cs.weber.edu (Terry Lambert) To: nate@trout.sri.MT.net (Nate Williams) Cc: dfr@nlsys.demon.co.uk, kaleb@x.org, kuku@gilberto.physik.rwth-aachen.de, hackers@freefall.cdrom.com Subject: Re: Mosaic with Lesstif Message-ID: <9503262301.AA18057@cs.weber.edu> In-Reply-To: <199503262049.NAA16602@trout.sri.MT.net> from "Nate Williams" at Mar 26, 95 01:49:27 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> [ Terry's Motif clone ] > > > I've been thinking about throwing the code open for developement > > in general, but haven't decided on all of the ground rules yet. > > Several of them will have to be: > > > > 1) You can *not* own a copy of Motif; this is to avoid the > > possibility of contamination. > > So since I have a binary license for Motif 1.2.3 from 1.1.5 days, I > can't get the source? Since I only have a binary license how could > that contaminate me? Header files? So far, I have only referenced books and examples to build everything. This includes the header files and manifest constants (ie: I don't expect binary compatability for shared libraries, but I do expect full source compatability with documented interfaces). I'm told that the header files document some things I've asked about various places, like manifest constant definitions for aliases for inherited routines (moxftp). Since they are undocumented, they can't end up supported, even accidently. It's probably legally defensible to work on it even if you have a licensed binary, but better safe than sorry. If you can prove you haven't looked at their header files, then that condition could probably be relaxed. Terry Lambert terry@cs.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?9503262301.AA18057>