Motif 1.2.x & X11R5

GRASS GIS GRASS GIS developer
1

It appears that the line has been drawn and we definitely have a
clear set of opposing views.

My main point is that if GRASS is to be considered a free, public
domain product then all of its component parts must not rely on
proprietary sub-components. To do otherwise is to destroy the initial
statement.

For example, if I wrote a command script for a commercial product and
simply advertised it as "public domain," I would be deceiving
potential users as to its true, general usefulness. I think they would
less than happy after getting a copy of this product and finding that
they also had to have a $$$... system to use it.

To be sure, we have put a caveat as to operating system for our
public domain products, but with the advent of Linux, even than
argument has been removed.

Again, I feel that CERL was ill-advised to link GRASS with Motif
and that this seriously detracts from the claim of free/public-domain.
There are acceptable alternative which could put GRASS back
into this category.

Gerald (Jerry) I. Evenden Internet: gie@charon.er.usgs.gov
voice: (508)563-6766 Postal: P.O. Box 1027
  fax: (508)457-2310 N.Falmouth, MA 02556-1027

2

okay, I'll my 2 cents.

Gerald I. Evenden (gie@charon.er.usgs.gov) writes on 12 Jan 94:

It appears that the line has been drawn and we definitely have a
clear set of opposing views.

yes. It's no secret, but for the record, I'm opposed to Motif.
Mostly for the reasons Jerry stated.

My main point is that if GRASS is to be considered a free, public
domain product then all of its component parts must not rely on
proprietary sub-components. To do otherwise is to destroy the initial

Again, I feel that CERL was ill-advised to link GRASS with Motif
and that this seriously detracts from the claim of free/public-domain.

Well, I do too, but I think that we have to consider that they
may have objectives other than keeping it free of proprietary
sub-components. We have to consider the mission of CERL
(e.g., I doubt that their primary purpose is GRASS programming).

After all, CERL could do what many (most?) other government agencies
do: use Arc/Info.

There are acceptable alternative which could put GRASS back
into this category.

Yes, and perhaps some of the more benevolent people with the
appropriate skills could do this, APART FROM CERL. Anything
from a port of XGRASS to completely starting over. Or perhaps
some MS student could take it on as a project. After all,
Motif was first introduced (xgen) by a student doing his MS
project.

That is, if this XGRASS thing is really even needed in
public domain software...

Recommendation: I would like to see XGRASS unbundled from
GRASS, i.e., made more clear all across netland that this
is a totally optional add on. Perhaps we should be more
vocal (in places like GIS-L). [see recent messages as
examples of the confusion]

As long as GRASS is completely independent of XGRASS,
I'm (close to but not completely) indifferent.

--Darrell

James Darrell McCauley, Purdue Univ, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1146, USA
mccauley@ecn.purdue.edu, mccauley%ecn@purccvm.bitnet, pur-ee!mccauley
** will finish PhD/engr in 9/94 - need job. inquiries welcome (no hh, plz) **

P.S. anyone know whatever became of 'dirt' (a PD automated drop-n-drag
interface builder)?