Plan 9 license

[Rod Dixon, J.D., LL.M.]

It's not exactly the clearest open source license, but it seems to cover the
pertinent points.

I do think David makes a very good point. Although provisions like sections
6.1(i) and 6.1(ii) are not unusual for non-mass market software licenses,
they do not seem to meet the spirit of an open source license. (Of course,
it would not be in the spririt of open source to bring such a lawsuit
either, but the restriction is what we may be concerned about, here). Even
if section 6.1 did not really bother anyone as a general matter, David's
point is correct that the language is so broad that it does not limit its
reach to the subject matter of the license. I would recommend that Lucent
consider making their intent more clear under section 6.1.

Rod
___________________________________
Rod Dixon
Visiting Assistant Professor of Law
Rutgers University School of Law - Camden
www.cyberspaces.org
rod at cyberspaces.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Johnson [mailto:david at usermode.org]
> Sent: Saturday, July 22, 2000 12:43 AM
> To: Russell Nelson; license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
>
>
> On Fri, 21 Jul 2000, Russell Nelson wrote:
> > Rob Pike has submitted the plan9 license for approval.  It's a bit
> > more complex than I like, but it mostly seems fine.  My own problem
> > with it is clause 6.1(ii), which allows termination upon a lawsuit for
> > infringement of *any* IP.  Seems like it discriminates against holders
> > of IP.
>
> I can understand where they're coming from with the clause, but it
> would have been nice if they limited it to copyright infringements. The
> way it is now, if I goof up and misuse the Lucent trademark as it
> relates to telephones, I lose the license to use Plan9.
>
> --
> David Johnson...
> _____________________________
> http://www.usermode.org
>