Subject: Re: Sun to free Solaris.
From: "Stephen J. Turnbull" <>
Date: Wed, 2 Feb 2000 11:53:16 +0900 (JST)

>>>>> "g" == D V Henkel-Wallace <> writes:

    g> At 11:00 27-01-00 +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
    >> >>>>> "g" == D V Henkel-Wallace <> writes:
    g> At 12:14 26-01-00 -0800, wrote:
    >> >> So is Apache an instance of project forking in part based on
    >> >> licensing terms?

    g> And Emacs...

    >> Hm?  Are you talking about Lucid?

    >> That's not the way I read the history.  AFAIK all of Lucid
    >> Emacs was always GPL.

    g> I was talking specifically about Xemacs, which if I remember
    g> used MOTIF.  I have been on many occasions unhappy with RMS's
    g> rigidity on licensing (hence, in part, the library license).
    g> But upon reflection he's been right -- even the library license
    g> I consider a failure.  Only on Xemacs would I consider that he
    g> might have been wrong.

RMS has always admitted Motif to be a system lib, as far as I know.
It seems unlikely that the split was based on that.  But stipulating
that as a potential cause:

I can't speak for early Lucid versions with authority.  However, AFAIK
the so-called Lucid widget set was developed precisely to make it
possible to have a completely free lemacs, and more important, one
whose GUI bugs could be fixed.  (For XEmacs 20.x and more recent,
Motif is deprecated except on Sun and maybe DEC and HP.)  The Motif
stuff was a "port" (although I seem to recall that was done more or
less simultaneously with developing the native widget set).  Lucid
Emacs never did depend on Motif because it could not use the Motif
event loop.  Instead, Motif stuff had to be interfaced to the Lucid
event loop.  The Lucid event loop was specifically designed to allow
relative portability to various GUIs.  (I note that the recent port of
XEmacs to Win32 has been relatively straightforward, although nowhere
near bump-free.)

It is arguable that the LGPL is responsible for Linux as we know it
today.  No LGPL, no Star Office, no Netscape, no RealAudio, etc, etc.

I recognize that glibc could have been special-cased, and the Lesser
GPL never published as an independent entity.  I agree that GPL is the
right way for rms himself, given his beliefs and goals, to license
readline.  Personally, I suspect I would find LGPL the right
compromise between GPL and GSD for any large application, whether
standalone or in library form, I write.[1]  But I don't find the GPL
that objectionable.

FSB content:  These non-free applications make Linux a much more
attractive platform for potential customers for FSBs.

[1]  Partly because I am pained by rms's position on Aladdin Ghostscript +
readline.  No such large app has happened yet, so I can't say for
sure. ;-)

University of Tsukuba                Tennodai 1-1-1 Tsukuba 305-8573 JAPAN
Institute of Policy and Planning Sciences       Tel/fax: +81 (298) 53-5091
_________________  _________________  _________________  _________________
What are those straight lines for?  "XEmacs rules."