RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments

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

I think the fact that the Plan 9 license is not written in the clearest
language has resulted in Stillman reading some of the provisions in a manner
they were not intended. Although I do not favor the U.S. export regulations
(even the revised regulations are faulty), Stillman cannot be correct that a
provision requiring compliance with the law renders the license a non-free
software license. We are all in trouble if that is the case.

Rod


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



> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Cowan [mailto:cowan at locke.ccil.org]
> Sent: Sunday, July 23, 2000 1:57 AM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Cc: rms at gnu.org
> Subject: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
>
>
> RMS wrote an article on the Plan 9 license, available at
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html .
> I have made excerpts from it here as a matter of fair use.
>
> > First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.
> >
> > > You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with
> > > a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version
> > > and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed
> > > to by You if used for any purpose.
> >
> > This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a
> > basic right
>
> I agree with RMS here.  Not allowing the private use of private changes
> is way unreasonable.
>
> > > and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost
> > > of any media.
> >
> > This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial
> > distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.
>
> I don't think this is really a problem; a "reasonable" charge can be
> whatever the buyer is willing to pay.
>
> > > Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this
> > > grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set
> > > forth in this Agreement,
> >
> > This seems to say when you redistribute you must insist on a contract
> > with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.
>
> I don't think this is a problem either.  The license doesn't say that
> your distributees must explicitly agree to the terms, just that those
> terms are imposed on them.  (Lucent might have a hard time enforcing
> them on contract alone, but copyright will probably give them most of
> what they need.)
>
> > > 1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall
> > > terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the
> > > terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate
> > > in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor
> > > and/or another Contributor.
> >
> > This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized
> > that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be
> > legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It
> > would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the
> > license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to
> > enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9
> > code.
>
> As others have posted, this is unreasonably broad.
>
> > > You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software
> > > or any modifications to it, You are responsible for compliance with
> > > the United States Export Administration Regulations and hereby
> > > indemnify the Original Contributor and all other Contributors for
> > > any liability incurred as a result.
> >
> > It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US
> > export control regulations. Laws being what they are, these
> > regulations apply in certain situations regardless of whether they
> > are mentioned in a license; however, requiring them as a license
> > condition can extend their reach to people and activities outside
> > the US government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wrong.
>
> I think RMS is overdoing it here.  The EARs apply only to goods exported
> from the U.S., not to those exported from other countries, no matter
> what this license says.  It does *not* say that you must follow the
> rules in the EARs, no matter what country you are exporting from!
>
> > A part of the distribution is covered by a further unacceptable
> > restriction:
> >
> > > 2.2 No right is granted to Licensee to create derivative works of
> > > or to redistribute (other than with the Original Software or a
> > > derivative thereof) the screen imprinter fonts identified in
> > > subdirectory /lib/font/bit/lucida and printer fonts (Lucida Sans
> > > Unicode, Lucida Sans Italic, Lucida Sans Demibold, Lucida Typewriter,
> > > Lucida Sans Typewriter83), identified in subdirectory
> > > /sys/lib/postscript/font.
>
> The fonts are distributed with Plan 9 as a convenience, but are not
> themselves open source.  (The same is true of the Squeak distribution,
> BTW.)  This is "mere aggregation".
>
> > Aside from those fatal flaws, the license has other obnoxious
> > provisions:
> >
> > > ...As such, if You or any Contributor include Licensed Software
> > > in a commercial offering ("Commercial Contributor"), such Commercial
> > > Contributor agrees to defend and indemnify Original Contributor
> > > and all other Contributors (collectively "Indemnified Contributors")
> >
> > Requiring indemnities from users is quite obnoxious.
>
> This protects non-commercial contributors from being sued for their
> part in defective software.  Users who are not commercial contributors
> are not at issue here.
>
> > > Contributors shall have unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide,
> > > perpetual, royalty-free rights, to use, reproduce, modify, display,
> > > perform, sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, and to grant
> > > third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as
> > > a part of or with the Licensed Software;
> >
> > This is a variant of the NPL asymmetry: you get limited rights to
> > use their code, but they get unlimited rights to use your changes.
> > While this does not by itself disqualify the license as a free
> > software license (if the other problems were corrected), it is
> > unfortunate.
>
> Agreed.
>
> --
> John Cowan                                   cowan at ccil.org
> C'est la` pourtant que se livre le sens du dire, de ce que, s'y conjuguant
> le nyania qui bruit des sexes en compagnie, il supplee a ce qu'entre eux,
> de rapport nyait pas.               -- Jacques Lacan, "L'Etourdit"
>
>