Return to BSD News archive
Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.bhp.com.au!mel.dit.csiro.au!munnari.OZ.AU!news.ecn.uoknor.edu!news.wildstar.net!serv.hinet.net!nctuccca.edu.tw!howland.reston.ans.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!in1.uu.net!news.artisoft.com!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@lambert.org>
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.development.system,comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc,comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,comp.os.linux.advocacy
Subject: Re: Lesstif vs. the OSF/Motif copyright
Date: Fri, 03 May 1996 21:46:39 -0700
Organization: Me
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <318AE12F.3F70F925@lambert.org>
References: <NELSON.96Apr15010553@ns.crynwr.com> <3176D081.794BDF32@FreeBSD.org> <4la318$ah3@sidhe.memra.com> <31794DB6.7DE974DF@lambert.org> <940@crane.ukc.ac.uk> <31866E12.67FD83BE@lambert.org> <4m8k99$o12@master.di.fc.ul.pt> <318978E8.14B8@vfr.interceptor.com> <4mc8v9$fob@s854803.kb.be> <318A36D9.3684@vfr.interceptor.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01 (X11; I; Linux 1.1.76 i486)
Xref: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au comp.os.linux.development.system:22979 comp.unix.bsd.386bsd.misc:920 comp.unix.bsd.bsdi.misc:3652 comp.unix.bsd.netbsd.misc:3491 comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc:18685 comp.os.linux.advocacy:47971
Thumper! wrote:
]
] Danny Backx wrote:
] >
] > Thumper!,
] >
] > You wrote that, in your opinion, LessTif is in violation of
] > the Motif copyright.
] >
] > X/Open pushlishes the OSF/Motif specs, which we (the LessTif
] > core) bought.
] >
] > Doesn't that allow us to build a Motif clone ?
No. You had the right to build a Motif clone with or
without buying their specification. The question is
whether those documents (or other published documents) were
your sole information source about Motif internals or not.
] My initial judgement was based on a previous statement by
] Terry Lambert which said, in part:
]
] > : They are
] > : implementing interfaces which aren't publically documented
] > : anywhere (programming books, OSF books, etc.) except in OSF
] > : header files and the namelist of OSF libXm.a.
]
] If that is not the case, then I am incorrect, assuming (also)
] that X/Open specifically allows you to use the specs they
] publish to build a compatible product (and not just to learn
] how to adapt Motif to work on a given system, for example).
My posting was based on my understanding of postings made to
the public Lesstif mailing list by Chris Mauritz and others.
It was my impression that MOXfm and MOXftp were at least
partially running using Lesstif. Both of these programs
use fontlists retrieved using internal library functions
in subclasses of Motif widgets. As far as I know, the MOX*
code constitutes the only published references for these
functions.
Since I have avoided purchasing OSF/Motif specifically to
avoid any chance of "contamination", I can't say whether or
not the interface is "published" in the OSF/Motif header
files. Given the declarations in the MOXftp sources,
however, I would have to guess that they are not. Header
files as published interfaces has already been well explored
in court cases in the US. Though I believe that using the
header files could put you at higher legal risk, it is, from
the cases of which I'm aware, legal. I define "legal risk"
as "probability in my opinion that a suit filed on that basis
would go to trial instead of being dismissed".
Also, according to postings on the list, internal string
storage format for Motif "XmString" type strings (an opaque
type according to O'Reilly and the OSF/Motif Programming
Guide) used in Lesstif is binarily compatible with that
used by Motif.
These are two of the basis for my risk assessment: Lesstif
includes these otherwise undocumented functions.
I'd be more than happy if you could point me at any form of
published documentation for XmString binary format or other
internal OSF/Motif functions not documented in the OSF/Motif
Programming Guides, Motif related books, or sample code (each
of which would constitute sufficient disclosure to allow
legal use ...in order of increasing legal risk).
Yes, I'm aware that *some* interfaces that were not documented
in Motif 1.x are now documented in 2.x... but the examples
above are specific exceptions from the postings I've seen.
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.