From: rhoward@matd.gatech.edu (Robert L. Howard)
Newsgroups: misc.legal,comp.sys.sun.misc
Subject: Re: Put away your Motif manual; Sun's lawyers are at the door!
Date: 23 Dec 92 00:21:40 GMT
Followup-To: misc.legal
Organization: Georgia Tech Research Institute

koreth@spud.Hyperion.COM (Steven Grimm) writes:

>From the license agreement on the back of the Solaris 2.1 CD:

>2. License to Develop.  In the event that Customer desires to develop software
>programs which incorporate portions of Software ("Developed Programs"), the
>following provisions apply, to the extent applicable:
                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Key phrase....

>                                                      Developed Programs are
>to be OPEN LOOK(R) compliant and have an application programming interface
>that is the same as that of Software;

If you build something with the supplied XView toolkit, you cannot hack
libolgx.a to draw primitives which don't look OPEN LOOK'ish.  You more-
over should at least try to be OPEN LOOK compliant.  In other words
don't monkey with the APIs and tools they have provided.

>                                      fonts within Software are to remain
>associated with their toolkit or server;

You can't build your own toolkit and incorporate the XView glyph
fonts in that toolkit.  You cannot bundle any of the OpenWindows
fonts with your application (i.e., so that it will work on some
other server).

>                                         Developed Programs may be used and
>distributed, but only on computer equipment licensed to utilize Solaris
>operating system software, unless an additional Developer's License Agreement
>has been executed by SunSoft and Customer;

You can't use Solaris and its tools to build an application that will
run on machines with no Solaris license.  (I guess that implies I
can't use Solaris to build an Xkernel for PCs where that individual
has not licensed Solaris).

>                                           Customer is not licensed to
>develop printing applications or print using fonts in F3(TM) format, unless
>Customer has secured a license for NeWSprint(TM);

Simple enough.  You may not use the F3 fonts without NeWSprint.  You
may not develop and distribute apps that use F3 fonts without a
NeWSprint license.  (I would also assume that if you did develop
such an app, that you could not distribute it to anyone that did
not have a NeWSprint license.  I would further presume that that 
is an issue between that end-user and Sun.)

>                                                  and Customer agrees to
>indeminfy, hold harmless and defend SunSoft from and against any claims or
>suits, including attorneys' fees, which arise or result from distribution
>or use of Developed Programs.

If your app causes end-user-A's machine to crash and tries to sue
you, you cannot turn around and say it was a library bug and sue
Sun.  Nearly all software has language like this and if you distribute
software yours should too.

>Whew.  So, in a nutshell, as I read it:

>- I can't port a Motif application to Solaris 2.1.

You can, just use the Motif libraries for that.

>- My program can't send things to my line printer unless I buy NeWSprint.

Only restricted if you try to use those F3 fonts.

>- If I develop a library, its API has to look the same as Solaris' (whatever
>  THAT means).

Not so sure on this one, but I suspect that they are trying to 
prevent you from *changing* the API of some existing library.
How you would do that is beyond me...

>- If a Solaris bug causes disk corruption while someone is using my software,
>  I have to hire attorneys to defend SunSoft if the user decides to sue,
>  even if the suit doesn't involve me at all.

Nope.  *If* they sue you, you can't sue Sun...

In summary:

I read it to say, use the provided tools, just don't change them.
Don't rip off fonts and stuff that you didn't design.  If they don't
work exactly right Sun is not monetarily responsible.

>Sun pays people to write this drivel?  Is there even a remote possibility
>that half these provisions wouldn't be laughed immediately out of court?
>Am I the only one who thinks the above is pretty ridiculous?

These seem pretty standard to me.  A little broad maybe but lawyers
get paid by how much a** they can cover.

Robert
--
| Robert L. Howard              |   Georgia Tech Research Institute     |
| robert.howard@matd.gatech.edu |   MATD Laboratory                     |
| (404) 528-7165                |   Atlanta, Georgia  30332             |
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| "See, when the GOVERNMENT spends money, it creates jobs; whereas when |
| the money is left in the hands of TAXPAYERS, God only knows what they |
| do with it.  Bake it into pies, probably.  Anything to avoid creating |
| jobs." -- Dave Barry                                                  |
Newsgroups: misc.legal