From: hopkins@cs.cmu.edu (Don Hopkins)
Subject: Re: XView 
Originator: hopkins@ECP.GARNET.CS.CMU.EDU
Organization: School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 17:04:21 GMT

mrd@ecs.soton.ac.uk (Mark Dobie) writes:

   If Sun drop Xview and don't offer something better then I expect a lot
   of people will get very disillusioned. Perhaps Xview will turn into a
   NET supported package? That would keep people like me happy, but I
   don't know how well it would go down in a professional application
   development environment.

				   Mark.

At one point, RMS was interested in using XView as the official Gnu
toolkit (which would have been a coup for Open Look), but the
copyright notices were too restrictive.  In fact, if interpreted
literally (like copyright notices are *supposed* to be), XView
shouldn't be on the MIT X11 contributed software tape. Sun's intention
certainly was that XView be on the MIT tape, but technically it was a
no-no, and Stallman certainly wouldn't touch it if there was any
ambiguity.  I tried pretty hard to get the notices changed, and I
think Richard talked to the Sun's lawyers about it, but I don't think
anything ever came of it.  Oh well.  

	-Don

PS: Here is how I tried to explain it:

From hopkins@Eng Tue Nov 27 00:21:36 1990
Subject: Copyright notices in XView and NeWS sources

The X Consortium and the Free Software Foundation have a "show
stopper" problem with the copyright notices on the MIT XView source
code distribution, that could cause the X Consortium to pull XView
from the X distribution, and prevent the GNU project from using XView
as their standard toolkit.

The copyright notice contained in the file "LEGAL_NOTICE" states:

"Users and possessors of this source code are hereby granted a
nonexclusive, royalty-free copyright and design patent license to use
this code in individual and commercial software."

The problem is that the legal notice does not clearly state that you
can either:
a) make changes and enhancements to the XView toolkit code
b) distribute copies of the XView toolkit code itself

The copyright notice in the client sources included with the NeWS 1.1
binary distribution (psterm for example) has a similar problem.  Some
time ago, John Gilmore of Grasshopper Group brought this to the
attention of Amy Christen, who worked with Sun Legal to come up with a
better copyright notice. Sun gave Grasshopper Group permission to
replace the copyright notice in psterm with a simpler, less
restrictive one, approved by Sun Legal.  (Grasshopper Group was
distributing an enhanced version of psterm, and it would have been a
violation of the copyright notice for them to have distributed the
code, except as part of another product!  This would have meant that
psterm could not be sold or even given away as a separate program, it
could not go on the Sun Users Group contributed software tape, and it
could not be distributed over comp.windows.news or by anonymous ftp.)
Here is the problem part of the old copyright notice:

"This file is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
media and as a part of the software program in whole or part.  Users
may copy or modify this file without charge, but are not authorized to
				             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
license or distribute it to anyone else except as part of a product
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
or program developed by the user.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Here is the less restrictive copyright notice that was approved by Sun
Legal:

This file is a product of Sun Microsystems, Inc. and is provided for
unrestricted use provided that this legend is included on all tape
media and as a part of the software program in whole or part.
Users may copy, modify or distribute this file at will.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The above is but one example of how such a notice could be worded. The
main thing is that it must explicitly give users the right to make
changes to the source code, and redistribute copies of that source
code.

We really need to change the copyright notice in the OPEN WINDOWS
PostScript and client source code (not to be confused with the server
source code, i.e. OWPS, which is a different issue entirely). Sun
never did get around to using the simple, clear, unrestrictive
copyright notice approved by Sun Legal.  Just the opposite!  The
present copyright notice, appearing in most of the C and PostScript
source code included with the Open Windows 2.0 binary distribution
(and unfortunately also in all the current TNT code), is so *extremely*
cryptic as to be totally useless:

"Copyright (c) 1989, Sun Microsystems, Inc.  RESTRICTED RIGHTS LEGEND:
Use, duplication, or disclosure by the Government is subject to
restrictions as set forth in subparagraph (c)(1)(ii) of the Rights in
Technical Data and Computer Software clause at DFARS 52.227-7013 and
in similar clauses in the FAR and NASA FAR Supplement."

Can *anybody* tell me what that's supposed to mean? We have *GOT* to
change that copyright notice! Either that, or include a copy of DFARS
52.227-7013 and the FAR and NASA FAR Supplement with the OPEN WINDOWS
documentation! (I hate to think what the media cost would be then!)

The XView "LEGAL_NOTICE" file grants the right to use the XView
toolkit code in individual or commercial software.  But that is not
what the X Consortium is doing -- they are not using XView toolkit
code in their software -- they are distributing the XView toolkit code
itself! The notice does not give them the right to do that, so they
will have to pull XView from the X distribution, if Sun does not
change the wording to make their intentions clear.

The legal notice also sets forth some restrictions on using the
trademark "OPEN LOOK", with respect to modifications to the program
that change its graphical appearance or output:

"A royalty-free, nonexclusive trademark license to refer to the code
and output as "OPEN LOOK" compatible is available from AT&T if, and
only if, the appearance of the icons or glyphs is not changed in any
manner except as absolutely necessary to accommodate the standard
resolution of the screen or other output device, the code and output
is not changed except as authorized herein, and the code and output is
validated by AT&T."

I read this as meaning that it's OK for anybody to make changes or
extensions to XView (say for instance were someone to implement
circular pie menus), as long as they don't claim that the enhanced
toolkit or product using it is "OPEN LOOK" compatible. If they make
*visual* changes to the toolkit and still want to call it "OPEN LOOK",
then they must submit it to AT&T for validation, but they are not
required to do so if they don't want to call it "OPEN LOOK". It's not
clear to me what the difference between "appearance" and "output" is,
and it's also not clear how this applies to extensions, bug fixes,
ports, enhancements, and other changes of the code that aren't just
arbitrary graphical mutations.

XView application programmers will, in the course of building complex
user interfaces, need to extend the XView toolkit code to create
special purpose controls or widgets. Many of these controls will be
generally useful to other people, and their authors will be willing to
give them away for free.  Hopefully some day there will exist a
collection of free XView widgets comparable to the collection of free
X Toolkit widgets that exists today!  But unfortunately, the legal
notice does not explicitly grant the right to make *extensions* (as
opposed to modifications) to the XView toolkit code, and still call it
"OPEN LOOK".

For example, someone might want to use XView to implement an otherwise
perfectly compliant OPEN LOOK application, except that for some reason
it requires a control that looks and behaves exactly like a rotary
telephone dial.  Something like that could be implemented as an
extension to the XView toolkit code.

So it's possible and desirable to extend the toolkit, to implement
compelling applications with sophisticated user interfaces. And it
even seems permissible, under the present terms of the license. But
*only* as long as those slick whiz bang applications with customized
OPEN LOOK user interfaces make no claim to being OPEN LOOK compatible!

But do we really want to encourage people to write nifty user
interfaces based on our free XView toolkit code, but require that they
refer to the look and feel by some other name than "OPEN LOOK"? (I can
see it now: someone extends the XView toolkit by implementing a
telephone dial, and instead of calling it "OPEN LOOK with Tony's
Telephony Extensions", they have to call it BTNS: "Better Than NeXT
Step"!)

I think the XView legal notice should make a clear distinction between
arbitrary visual changes (were someone to whack all the drawing code
around so it looked like Motif, which we probably don't want to
encourage), and extensions (were someone to implement a spreadsheet
widget or a telephone dial, which we probably do want to encourage),
including bug fixes, ports to other systems, enhancements, and other
positive changes.

I might be mistaken in my interpretation of the legal notice, but that
does not excuse the notice for being misleading.  The legal notice
should not be vague, broad, indirect or implicit about the restrictions
it puts on the user, and the intent behind the restrictions should be
made clear.

	-Don