Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:

> RMS claims that the Artistic License is not free. His reasoning seems to be
> that it is vague. If vagueness disqualifies a license from being free,
> then people should know it right up front.

It's not unfree (according to RMS) because it's vague per se.  It's unfree
(according to RMS) because it is too vague to *tell* whether it meets
the requirements of a free license.

Specifically, clause 5 says you can charge a "reasonable" fee for distributing
the software (an undefined term), but not for the software itself.
That could be interpreted to infringe the freedom 2.

> By suing Lucent over IP, you *have* given cause for revocation. This
> clause is better applied to other licenses, like the APSL, where a
> license can be revoked through no action on the user's part.

It isn't just Lucent, it's *any* contributor to Plan 9, and the IP
suit can be about anything whatever.  If somebody abuses your GPLed
software, and you sue, and the perpetrator turns out to be a Plan 9
contribute, *pip* goes your right to modify or distribute Plan 9.

-- 
John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
"[O]n the whole I'd rather make love than shoot guns [...]"
	--Eric Raymond