home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky comp.windows.open-look:4452 alt.toolkits.xview:1054
- Newsgroups: comp.windows.open-look,alt.toolkits.xview
- Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!sgiblab!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!hopkins
- From: hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins)
- Subject: Re: XView
- In-Reply-To: mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk's message of 11 Nov 92 11:51:20 GMT
- Message-ID: <BxKA3C.GA.1@cs.cmu.edu>
- Originator: hopkins@ECP.GARNET.CS.CMU.EDU
- Sender: news@cs.cmu.edu (Usenet News System)
- Nntp-Posting-Host: ecp.garnet.cs.cmu.edu
- Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
- References: <epwcil5@openlook.Unify.Com> <13473@ecs.soton.ac.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:04:21 GMT
- Lines: 183
-
- mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie) writes:
-
- If Sun drop Xview and don't offer something better then I expect a lot
- of people will get very disillusioned. Perhaps Xview will turn into a
- NET supported package? That would keep people like me happy, but I
- don't know how well it would go down in a professional application
- development environment.
-
- Mark.
-
- At one point, RMS was interested in using XView as the official Gnu
- toolkit (which would have been a coup for Open Look), but the
- copyright notices were too restrictive. In fact, if interpreted
- literally (like copyright notices are *supposed* to be), XView
- shouldn't be on the MIT X11 contributed software tape. Sun's intention
- certainly was that XView be on the MIT tape, but technically it was a
- no-no, and Stallman certainly wouldn't touch it if there was any
- ambiguity. I tried pretty hard to get the notices changed, and I
- think Richard talked to the Sun's lawyers about it, but I don't think
- anything ever came of it. Oh well.
-
- -Don
-
- PS: Here is how I tried to explain it:
-
- From hopkins@Eng Tue Nov 27 00:21:36 1990
- Subject: Copyright notices in XView and NeWS sources
-
- The X Consortium and the Free Software Foundation have a "show
- stopper" problem with the copyright notices on the MIT XView source
- code distribution, that could cause the X Consortium to pull XView
- from the X distribution, and prevent the GNU project from using XView
- as their standard toolkit.
-
- The copyright notice contained in the file "LEGAL_NOTICE" states:
-
- "Users and possessors of this source code are hereby granted a
- nonexclusive, royalty-free copyright and design patent license to use
- this code in individual and commercial software."
-
- The problem is that the legal notice does not clearly state that you
- can either:
- a) make changes and enhancements to the XView toolkit code
- b) distribute copies of the XView toolkit code itself
-
- The copyright notice in the client sources included with the NeWS 1.1
- binary distribution (psterm for example) has a similar problem. Some
- time ago, John Gilmore of Grasshopper Group brought this to the
- attention of Amy Christen, who worked with Sun Legal to come up with a
- better copyright notice. Sun gave Grasshopper Group permission to
- replace the copyright notice in psterm with a simpler, less
- restrictive one, approved by Sun Legal. (Grasshopper Group was
- distributing an enhanced version of psterm, and it would have been a
- violation of the copyright notice for them to have distributed the
- code, except as part of another product! This would have meant that
- psterm could not be sold or even given away as a separate program, it
- could not go on the Sun Users Group contributed software tape, and it
- could not be distributed over comp.windows.news or by anonymous ftp.)
- Here is the problem part of the old copyright notice:
-
- "This file is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
- unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
- media and as a part of the software program in whole or part. Users
- may copy or modify this file without charge, but are not authorized to
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
- or program developed by the user.
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- Here is the less restrictive copyright notice that was approved by Sun
- Legal:
-
- This file is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
- unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
- media and as a part of the software program in whole or part.
- Users may copy, modify or distribute this file at will.
- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
-
- The above is but one example of how such a notice could be worded. The
- main thing is that it must explicitly give users the right to make
- changes to the source code, and redistribute copies of that source
- code.
-
- We really need to change the copyright notice in the OPEN WINDOWS
- PostScript and client source code (not to be confused with the server
- source code, i.e. OWPS, which is a different issue entirely). Sun
- never did get around to using the simple, clear, unrestrictive
- copyright notice approved by Sun Legal. Just the opposite! The
- present copyright notice, appearing in most of the C and PostScript
- source code included with the Open Windows 2.0 binary distribution
- (and unfortunately also in all the current TNT code), is so *extremely*
- cryptic as to be totally useless:
-
- "Copyright (c) 1989, Sun Microsystems, Inc. RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND:
- Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to
- restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in
- Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 52.227-7013 and
- in similar clauses in the FAR and NASA FAR Supplement."
-
- Can *anybody* tell me what that's supposed to mean? We have *GOT* to
- change that copyright notice! Either that, or include a copy of DFARS
- 52.227-7013 and the FAR and NASA FAR Supplement with the OPEN WINDOWS
- documentation! (I hate to think what the media cost would be then!)
-
- The XView "LEGAL_NOTICE" file grants the right to use the XView
- toolkit code in individual or commercial software. But that is not
- what the X Consortium is doing -- they are not using XView toolkit
- code in their software -- they are distributing the XView toolkit code
- itself! The notice does not give them the right to do that, so they
- will have to pull XView from the X distribution, if Sun does not
- change the wording to make their intentions clear.
-
- The legal notice also sets forth some restrictions on using the
- trademark "OPEN LOOK", with respect to modifications to the program
- that change its graphical appearance or output:
-
- "A royalty-free, nonexclusive trademark license to refer to the code
- and output as "OPEN LOOK" compatible is available from AT&T if, and
- only if, the appearance of the icons or glyphs is not changed in any
- manner except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard
- resolution of the screen or other output device, the code and output
- is not changed except as authorized herein, and the code and output is
- validated by AT&T."
-
- I read this as meaning that it's OK for anybody to make changes or
- extensions to XView (say for instance were someone to implement
- circular pie menus), as long as they don't claim that the enhanced
- toolkit or product using it is "OPEN LOOK" compatible. If they make
- *visual* changes to the toolkit and still want to call it "OPEN LOOK",
- then they must submit it to AT&T for validation, but they are not
- required to do so if they don't want to call it "OPEN LOOK". It's not
- clear to me what the difference between "appearance" and "output" is,
- and it's also not clear how this applies to extensions, bug fixes,
- ports, enhancements, and other changes of the code that aren't just
- arbitrary graphical mutations.
-
- XView application programmers will, in the course of building complex
- user interfaces, need to extend the XView toolkit code to create
- special purpose controls or widgets. Many of these controls will be
- generally useful to other people, and their authors will be willing to
- give them away for free. Hopefully some day there will exist a
- collection of free XView widgets comparable to the collection of free
- X Toolkit widgets that exists today! But unfortunately, the legal
- notice does not explicitly grant the right to make *extensions* (as
- opposed to modifications) to the XView toolkit code, and still call it
- "OPEN LOOK".
-
- For example, someone might want to use XView to implement an otherwise
- perfectly compliant OPEN LOOK application, except that for some reason
- it requires a control that looks and behaves exactly like a rotary
- telephone dial. Something like that could be implemented as an
- extension to the XView toolkit code.
-
- So it's possible and desirable to extend the toolkit, to implement
- compelling applications with sophisticated user interfaces. And it
- even seems permissible, under the present terms of the license. But
- *only* as long as those slick whiz bang applications with customized
- OPEN LOOK user interfaces make no claim to being OPEN LOOK compatible!
-
- But do we really want to encourage people to write nifty user
- interfaces based on our free XView toolkit code, but require that they
- refer to the look and feel by some other name than "OPEN LOOK"? (I can
- see it now: someone extends the XView toolkit by implementing a
- telephone dial, and instead of calling it "OPEN LOOK with Tony's
- Telephony Extensions", they have to call it BTNS: "Better Than NeXT
- Step"!)
-
- I think the XView legal notice should make a clear distinction between
- arbitrary visual changes (were someone to whack all the drawing code
- around so it looked like Motif, which we probably don't want to
- encourage), and extensions (were someone to implement a spreadsheet
- widget or a telephone dial, which we probably do want to encourage),
- including bug fixes, ports to other systems, enhancements, and other
- positive changes.
-
- I might be mistaken in my interpretation of the legal notice, but that
- does not excuse the notice for being misleading. The legal notice
- should not be vague, broad, indirect or implicit about the restrictions
- it puts on the user, and the intent behind the restrictions should be
- made clear.
-
- -Don
-