Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, John Cowan wrote:
> 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.
> 
> ...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.

Freedom #2 is the freedom to redistribute copies. It would take a big
stretch to intrepet AL clause 5 as restricting one's ability to
redistribute the software. The clause in question:

	5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any
	distribution of this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for
	support of this Package. You may not charge a fee for his
	Package itself. However, you may distribute this Package in aggregate
	with other (possibly commercial) programs as part of a larger (possibly
	commercial) software distribution provided that you do not
	advertise this Package as a product of your own.

Charging a copying fee is allowed, as does the GPL. Charging
for support is also allowed, and it is one of the suggestions given by
the FSF for companies that wish to profit off of their development.
The aggregation stuff does not negate any of this. 

Neither does the "reasonable" word affect it's status as a Free
License. We went over this on the list not to long ago, with no real
resolution, but let's assume that this means you cannot charge an
*unreasonable* fee. The Free Software definition, including its
penumbra of clarifications and explanations, says that you may
distribute copies either gratis or for a fee. It does not say that you
must allow unreasonable fees. It just says "a fee". Trying to
understand the approved way of interpreting Free Software, it seems to
me that an unreasonable fee does not "help your neighbor" in freedom
number two, so disallowing unreasonable fees in no way violates
that freedom.

In case I missed your point, the not charging for the Package itself
stuff is okay as well. Everywhere where fee or price is discussed in
the "FSD", it is for distribution or copying. The GPL is in agreement on
this as well. Since it does not specifically allow charging for the
software itself, copyright forbids it.

> > 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.

Interesting. I hadn't thought of it in that way. Now that I think about
it, it can be taken as a prohibition against defending your *own* IP. I
can almost visualize that Lucent lawyer telling his buddies about the
evil clause he crafted :-) I will graciously concede the point and
apologize to Matthew. Plan 9 teeters on the edge of freeness but falls
howling into the abyss of doom...

-- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>