plug motif libraries

[The Thought Assassin]

On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, Mike Holland wrote:
> On Mon, 1 Jun 1998, chris mcdonald wrote:
> > On Sat, 30 May 1998, Neil Hunt wrote:
> > - I have a Motif resellers' license and I can sell you a new copy,
> > - I have an individual copy of Motif to sell second-hand,
> > - I am willing to compile a Motif program for you and send you the binary.
> Uh, none of the above actually. I hope you aren't too shocked Chris.
> But perhaps I should keep my communist-Stallman-ist ideas off this mail
> list.

I think probably you should, if only for legal reasons. I _really_ don't
want to start a flamewar, but I think you will find that most people
believe in the right of companies and individuals to charge for the use of
their software - on the other hand, you might find that the majority here
do not believe those companies have a right to secrecy over the protocols,
APIs, etc that the software uses, and the more idealistic amongst us might
feel that selling software without source code is Wrong.

OK, that was conjecture about the feelings of the group... don't argue
with me about it, please, because these are not necessarily my opinions.
The following _are_ my opinions, so you can debate them with me gently :)
Please don't send things to the list that are more appropriate for private
email. I have no desire to initiate unpleasantness on this list.

Personally, I feel that a company who restricts information about their
products in an anti-competitive not to mention damaging to the end-user)
way is artificially inflating the price of their products, (by preventing
competition from others) while providing less to their customers, and as
such are not deserving of the money they charge.

Motif, AFAIK, is a commercial, but open and well-defined, standard - so in
my eyes at the least, the developers are well-justified in charging what
they do for their hard work.

While I don't feel that software developers have a moral obligation to
provide source code to customers, I feel that the industry (but not
necessarily companies within the industry) and the consumer would be
greatly benefitted by a legal obligation to this effect.
My justification is that, in the end, the software industry is a _service_
industry, and that servicing the needs of consumers is what the game is
about, not just providing shrinkwrapped boxes and a good-luck wish.
For a software company to do the best thing by it's consumers, I feel that
it should open up it's source to them, and make it's money from supporting
it's customers, customizing the product on demand, and providing complete
'solutions' for it's customers' needs, rather than just boxes of disks.

Again, I stress that this is merely my opinion, and I am very keen to hear
what others think on this issue.


> [warning  - advertisement follows]
> But, since you mention it, I do have a Mootiff CD going cheap.
> Its a Linux port of Motif 2.0, and works with Mozilla.
> Includes libraries, headers, mwm, demos and man pages.
Yum, how much? Any other details?

-Greg