Note: This is a public test instance of Red Hat Bugzilla. The data contained within is a snapshot of the live data so any changes you make will not be reflected in the production Bugzilla. Email is disabled so feel free to test any aspect of the site that you want. File any problems you find or give feedback at bugzilla.redhat.com.

Bug 202527

Summary:	openmotif's licensing is poor and it should be moved to Fedora Extras
Product:	[Fedora] Fedora	Reporter:	Tom "spot" Callaway <tcallawa>
Component:	openmotif	Assignee:	Thomas Woerner <twoerner>
Status:	CLOSED RAWHIDE	QA Contact:
Severity:	urgent	Docs Contact:
Priority:	medium
Version:	rawhide	CC:	dcantrell, eric-bugs, kevin, pertusus, rdieter, sundaram
Target Milestone:	---
Target Release:	---
Hardware:	All
OS:	Linux
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version:		Doc Type:	Bug Fix
Doc Text:		Story Points:	---
Clone Of:		Environment:
Last Closed:	2006-10-02 21:58:32 UTC	Type:	---
Regression:	---	Mount Type:	---
Documentation:	---	CRM:
Verified Versions:		Category:	---
oVirt Team:	---	RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team:	---	Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:
Bug Blocks:	150224

Description Tom "spot" Callaway 2006-08-14 22:10:33 UTC

This bug is filed as part of the FSF compatible licensing audit of Fedora:

The openmotif license is obviously not FSF compatible, and we really should get
it out of Fedora Core. In Fedora Core development, there are four dependent
packages (a lot more in Extras, so we probably can't nuke it from
orbit):
- ddd (nothing depends on it, should go to FE)
- tetex-xdvi (if we pass --with-xdvi-x-toolkit=xaw to configure, we
eliminate the motif dependency)
- xpdf (nothing seems to explicitly depend on it, with evince around,
this can probably go to FE)
- mesa-libGLw (this guy is hard. we could disable motif support for this
library, but as Bugzilla 175251 points out, it is kindof worthless
without it. Also does not seem to be trivial to move into its own
subpackage, but nothing in Core requires it. X11 team needs to fix this one.)

Work should be done to separate mesa-libGLw into its own SRPM, then it should be
moved into Fedora Extras along with openmotif, ddd, and xpdf.

Comment 1 Kevin Kofler 2006-08-17 15:51:39 UTC

IMHO, it shouldn't be moved to Extras (where I believe the license would be 
just as unacceptable, it is neither FSF- nor OSI-approved and doesn't fit 
either's definition of Free Software resp. Open Source), but reverted to 
lesstif (which should be in Extras, not Core, but that's unrelated to 
licensing). Why was the switch from lesstif to OpenMotif (towards the end of 
RHL time) made in the first place?

Comment 2 Eric Hopper 2006-08-17 17:30:04 UTC

In Ubuntu, ddd depends on lesstif2, not openmotif.  I don't know about
mesa-libGLw, but xpdf can be dropped if it can't be compiled with lesstif.

Comment 3 Rex Dieter 2006-08-21 12:27:26 UTC

FYI, see also
Bugzilla Bug #203274 â Review Request: lesstif - OSF/Motif(R) library clone

Comment 4 Patrice Dumas 2006-08-24 21:32:27 UTC

I have filled Bug #203993 against openmotif to have parallel, 
that could be relevant here. 

Should this bug really block FC6? It seems rather short to 
me, I believe it would better fit in the FC7 time frame. 
It would be nice to have parallel installable packages 
ready when FC7 begins and rebuild everything/move to 
extras such that we have switched and put openmotif in a 
repo where it can be easily used by those who want it 
when FC7 gors out.

Comment 5 Jeremy Katz 2006-10-02 21:58:32 UTC

This has been whacked.