On 2/3/21 9:31 PM, Lev wrote:
> Hi Jon,
>
> If getting Motif and CDE relicensed under X11 someday is still desirable, I
> think having the CDE project become a member of Software in the Public
> Interest (they already help manage the legal side of X.org, etc.) could be
> helpful.
If I had a vote, I would have made both CDE and Motif MIT licensed, like
X11... But I didn't. Last time I brought it up, the usual licensing
arguments broke out. I can live with the way it is, there are bigger
fish to fry, and another war over licensing seems pointless.
There is also the issue that I am not sure I even have any legal right
TO try to relicense CDE. I can't imaging anyone trying to sue someone
for trying... but at this point, I see no point.
> There are a lot of advantages of relicensing:
> - Less worries statically linking CDE/Motif binaries containing
> GPL-incompatible source code
>
> - To my knowledge, there is no major X11 widget library available under X11
> terms except Xaw. This could give us a considerable boost within the *BSD
> community.
Nothing prevents the BSD's from running GPL code. It is their choice to
eliminate it as a default option.
> - We would share the same license as X.org, so potentially the entire stack
> (X server, Xlib, Xt, Motif, CDE) would be available under uniform terms. This
> might encourage contributions from commercial vendors, etc.
MIT... Motif is LGPL just like CDE as they were relicensed and
opensourced at the same time.
> As a legal entity, SPI could hold assets (trademarks, copyrights, etc.) in
> trust for the CDE community indefinitely. Also, they would allow us to
> receive tax-deductible donations, whether money, code, computer hardware, etc.
I just don't see (as Marcin mentioned) we are anywhere near big enough
to warrant any of that. Who knows what the future holds of course, but
I'm pretty sure it isn't here yet...
> As far as I can see, we haven’t been adding the MIT license to files that
> have been changed, so presumably everything added is licensed under the LGPL.
> I don’t think anyone wants a repeat of the Motif LGPL situation of tracking
> contributors down and getting them to sign off. If we could arrange to offer
> major contributors the possibility of assigning their copyright to a group
> like SPI to hold in trust for CDE, that wouldn’t be a concern.
We request that anyone who contributes, do so under the MIT license to
avoid that issue.
I am not sure we have ever had anyone come back and say "Wait, I don't
agree to that, remove my code!".
> Were there any plans in place for how we would go about convincing the Open
> Group to relicense?
Nope.
-jon
> Kind regards,
> Lev
>
>> Hi Lev,
>>
>> Sorry, I don't know who this is really... What assistance are we looking
>> for specifically?
>>
>> -jon
--
Jon Trulson
"Entropy. It isn't what it used to be."
-- Sheldon
_______________________________________________
cdesktopenv-devel mailing list
cdesktopenv-devel@lists.sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/cdesktopenv-devel
