RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments

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

I think someone suggested dropping the word "reasonable." I think that is a
good idea. RMS seems to think so too.

Rod




> -----Original Message-----
> From: Matthew C. Weigel [mailto:weigel+ at pitt.edu]
> Sent: Monday, July 24, 2000 1:41 AM
> To: David Johnson
> Cc: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments
>
>
> On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, David Johnson wrote:
>
> > On Sun, 23 Jul 2000, Matthew Weigel wrote:
> >
> > > Is there a problem with deleting the word reasonable?  Are you simply
> > > arguing that it doesn't need to be deleted, that it's too
> small detail to
> > > matter?  Because we don't know what reasonable might mean in a court
> > > room, and it might make a difference.
> >
> > With or without the word "reasonable", this clause is in accordance
> > with the OSD and the Free Software definition. Other clauses are
> > different matter.
>
> Yes, I know.  But 'passable' and 'good' are different things.  I
> would like
> to know, though, how Bell Labs people feel about the clause... because if
> they have a reason for keeping it, they should.  Unless they make changes
> elsewhere, I don't think it should be certified, and they shouldn't worry
> about this until other things are taken care of.  I don't think the other
> contestable portions of the licnese need much discussion; no one has
> defended them as meeting the definition.  I've seen lots of
> people say "it's
> open enough, who cares if it's certified" on comp.os.plan9, but that's a
> separate argument.
>
> > > Why don't you have to 'interpret every software license according to
> > > what a judge or jury....'?  Legal precendence is a part of
> deciding what
> > > licenses do, and deciding what licenses do is part of deciding whether
> > > they're OSI Certified or not.
> >
> > I don't, and can't, interpret them that way, because I am not a
> > mind-reader. I've seen enough legal decision, and sat on enough juries,
> > to know that the legal process is far from objective.  If there is
> > prior precedence on the definition of "reasonable charges", then I'll
> > go with that, but I might as well read the tea-leaves than try to
> > guess what a future jury might do.
>
> I can't understand this.  You agree, completely, that we don't
> know (barring
> someone doing legal research) what 'reasonable fee' means.  And then you
> argue that as long as the definition of an ephemeral word is not
> contested,
> there's no problem, we should let it stay.  Am I getting this right?  I
> don't mean to build a straw man argument... it just looks as if you're
> trying to view the language as cut and dried, when it's not.
>
> I would hope some other people comment on this, because I think it's an
> important question of what subject matter is important to discuss (that's
> the only reason I haven't taken this off the list).
>
>  Matthew Weigel
>  Programmer/Student
>  weigel+ at pitt.edu
>
>