Plan 9 license

[Matthew C. Weigel]

On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet
> "official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD
> even if it strays from the general spirit several times.

I'm not certain I agree with that, myself.  Its requirement that licensees
choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect their intellectual
property is particularly onerous.  The right of Bell Labs to demand private
source is also unacceptable.

>                                                          I
> should think that it may be approved at some point, although I
> have no doubt that they will be asked to change parts of it. Actually,
> it follows the four RMS definitions of Free Software as well...

Look more carefully.  The page that lists the four freedoms does not declare
those four freedoms "absolutely what makes free software." Rather, those
freedoms, combined with the explanations, discussion, and ideas below, make
free software.  The right to private, undistributed copies is discussed
below.  So is the right to maintain your license to the software so long as
you have not given cause for it to be terminated; with the Plan 9 license,
your license can be terminated if you file an IP suit against *some random
other company who has contributed to Plan 9 any code*.

A clause in the OSD regarding the "locality" of the license might be in
order -- that is, that the license should not effect legal issues outside
the domain of the software being licensed itself.  Perhaps a clarification
that all "fair use" such as annotations, or undistributed, personal
modifications should also be held sacred explicitly.

 Matthew Weigel
 Programmer/Student
 weigel+ at pitt.edu