Date: Sat, 6 Dec 1997 20:35:25 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: imp@village.org (Warner Losh) Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, tlambert@primenet.com, jkh@time.cdrom.com, hsu@freebsd.org, hackers@hub.freebsd.org Subject: Re: shared library with static Motif? Message-ID: <199712062035.NAA29082@usr04.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <199712052255.PAA12376@harmony.village.org> from "Warner Losh" at Dec 5, 97 03:55:23 pm
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> This whole discussion came up back when the university of Ill was > distributing Mosaic. They were able to distribute a statically linked > copy of Mosaic because their license allowed them to do so. It was a > 1.1 Motif rather than a 1.2 (or maybe 1.2 rather than 2.0). Version doesn't matter. This has always been legal, if you have legally obtained libXm.a. There are three categories of users: 1) Vendors May legally distribute libXm.a and libXm.so.?.? and /usr/include/Xm/* to third parties on a royalty basis. 2) Developers Legally obtained through licenses libXm.a and libXm.so.?.? and /usr/include/Xm/*. They may compile including the headers and link against either library. They may not enable someone else to do so as well through distribution of libXm.so.?.? or /usr/include/Xm/* files. They may distribute libXm.a as part of a statically linked image which can not itself be used as a library (though it may implement a virtual machine). 3) End users May legally use code legally distributed by developers. May *not* link against libxm.a or libxm.so.?.?, since can not legally obtain /usr/include/Xm/*. This is the gross breakdown. There are other classes of use, such as royalty buy-outs (OSF/TOG bets you will sell less units than the buyout fee divided by the per unit royalty, and you bet you will sell more units), etc.. These gradations aren't useful for judging license violation. While theoretically possible, a royalty buy-out for full Motif distribution, unhampered, would cost more than SCO paid for USL. Jeffrey was talking about trying to find a way to link such that people in category 3 can move to category 2 without violating license. My reading of the materials makes me believe that's not possible. The best you can do is make an interpreter, and it's still not clear that this wouldn't be covered under requirement for a royalty or royalty buy-out (Sun and SCO both have technology trade based royalty buyouts, as did Novell; this is basically the "trading card"/patent corsslicense approach, and unlikely to be possible for a small company). The short answer is that, without using an interpreted language, you can not legally develop Motif programs without paying a royalty of some kind to OSF/TOG, and you can not enable a third party to do so without them paying a royalty of some kind to OSF/TOG. The intent of their license is clear; if you go into "wheedle mode" on it, as soon as you start to make enough money for it to be a profitable endeavor, or as soon as you start cutting into the revenue stream even if you aren't making a profit, or as soon as it becomes a "due dilligence" issue, expect OSF/TOG to show up on your doorstep with a portable law office. And unlike the holes in the GPL, OSF/TOG has the money to make the spirit of the license stick, in court. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- 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?199712062035.NAA29082>