Plan 9 license

[Brian Behlendorf]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> 
> > ... I would argue the OSD
> > was not, is not, and never will be an airtight document whose letter you can
> > follow, but whose spirit you can ignore; the letter of the definition was
> > largely thrown together, in an attempt to encapsulate the spirit. 

This is something we wrestle with on the board, as well; this is one
reason it takes so long to approve a license, because often times small
changes in licenses (or brand new ones written in the write tone of
voice) can contain subtle clauses that, even if in conformance with the
OSD, may have deleterious consequences down the road.  We are often asking
ourselves, does this issue compromise the spirit of the OSD, and does it
suggest that a new one should be added?  The whole
we-revoke-your-rights-if-we-get-sued thing creates a very *instable*
situation if that code becomes part of a major open source project.  It is
unwise to build on top of a foundation that could be ripped out with a
single letter from a lawyer (if it's possible to avoid it).  It also why
seemingly innocuous things like taking "only $1000 of liability" instead
of "no liability at all" are causes for concern; what does that mean to
the average developer?

At the same time, as a non-profit certification organization, we *must*
certify licenses *only* on their conformance to the OSD, as it is at the
time of submission, otherwise we may lose our right to enforce the
certification mark.  We are not prevented from evolving the certification
requirements over time, but then we need to version it (a license may be
OSD v1 compliant but not OSD v2).

> There is a need for a precise definition of Free Software, and the OSD
> fulfills this role nicely. 

I'll correct you, because if I don't Stallman will.  =)  We have no issue
with Stallman wishing to preserve the term "Free Software" as one the FSF
can define.  The OSD is the definition for Open Source software, which is
decidedly more permissive than the Free Software definition that the FSF
promotes, and we don't wish to confuse the issue.

	Brian