Antialiased Nedit, UTF8 now a possibility

[Dušan Peterc]

Hello Jörg,

On Wed, Jun 24, 2009 at 9:16 AM, Joerg Fischer <jf505 at gmx.de> wrote:

>
> > OpenMotif's license is an open license with strings attached - you can
> not
> > use it on operating systems whose kernel is not open source.
> > But GPL also puts claims on your code, it asks you to release your other
> > source against which you link, as GPL.
> > To me, GPL is more limiting than OpenMotif license.
> > So I would not disqualify OpenMotif based use or development based solely
> on
> > the license.
>
> I'm afraid you don't see the differences. Perhaps this is because of
> the silly "open source" phrase, which naturally anyone understands
> like you get the source code. In this sense, anything would be fine.
>
> The problem is OpenMotif is not free software.  The string attached
> disqualifies OpenMotif's license by contradicting against one of the
> elementary freedoms.  One can't disallow to use software depending on
> whether one likes the respective platform.  You shouldn't claim this
> would be comparable to the GPL, which ensures the software to stay
> (truly) free software in any respect.  This different "string
> attached" was coined as copyleft, which is a pun to copyright.
> Essential it means that software should have no owners right from the
> start.  But since one can't change the copyright law, the trick is to
> use the very same copyright to declare software "ownerless" once and
> for all. This isn't a string attached in the real sense IMO.
>
> Now, if this sounds too theoretical, you got a practical example right
> away with NEdit. NEdit was developed on a Unix system, and till today
> it is most commonly used on Unix systems. This is allowed, since NEdit
> is free software. If the old Motif on Unix systems could be replaced
> with its follower OpenMotif then maybe you would have more developers
> listening...


It is quite the opposite - GPL puts claims on the new code which I write,
using a toolkit or pieces of code.
Some bearded guy takes away my rights and will preach to the world using my
code.
http://www.linuxtoday.com/news_story.php3?ltsn=2000-06-05-022-04-OP-CY&tbovrmode=3
RMS said: "Motif still cannot be part of a free operating system, and
combining or linking someone else's GPL-covered code with Motif is still a
violation of the GPL except in very special circumstances."
This is so idiotic that I can't even argue against it. He is trying to
"outlaw" the use of nedit over OpenMotif, because he does not like the
OpenMotif's license. Thank you expanding my freedom.

OpenMotif's license only puts limitations on where I can use OpenMotif. I
can only use it on open source kernels. Any true freedom lover will not have
a problem with that, since he or she already uses only free software. I may
not like it, but copyright owners have this right. But it does not say
anything about my code. See the difference? See that OpenMotif license gives
me more freedom than GPL.

I am sorry we are discussing licenses instead of code.
I really dislike that, and I have never seen a discussion on licenses, where
someone changed opinion.

So let's forget about OpenMotif, if you people dislike it so much.
How about changing the function drawString() and redrawLineNumbers() from
textDisp.c
and replace XDrawImageString(...)
with XftDrawStringUtf8(...)
would someone support me, if I did this change?
I can make a small test change, with iso8859-1 to UTF8 conversion and XFT
antialiased font display.

Dušan Peterc