Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Brian Behlendorf wrote:

> > 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.

Oh, he's corrected me before, yet I persist in this heresy :-) The way
I look at it, both the OSI and the FSF are trying to place a definition
on the same concept. RMS' problems with "Open Source" have nothing to
do with the OSD allowing to much or too little in the definitions.
Other than a mention of the APSL, the only distinctions he makes in
"Why Free Software is better than Open Source" are in the names
and the perceived ethics. He says nothing about differences in
definitions.

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