RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments

[John Cowan]

David Johnson wrote:

> As a practical matter, though, this is just as meaningless as arguing
> over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin :-)

But does computation require a material substrate?  :-)

> You're only
> supposed to submit the code upon request. First of all, Lucent has to
> know that you've even modified it, which is unlikely. Second, even if
> an even coworker turned you in, it's doubtful that Lucent would even
> want your private modifications.

Contracts are based on the notion that the contracting parties will drop
dead tomorrow, and their heirs, who hate each others' guts, will then
have to deal with the contract as is.

(Lucent doesn't have an heir, of course, but policies can change.)

> I also have a suspicion that this clause is legally meaningless as
> well, since I don't think they can restrict private usage of legal
> copies to begin with.  Lucent may own the copyright and rights to
> distribution, but the user owns the particular copy.

"Own" is a sticky word.  What we are talking about is the right to
make modified versions, which is clearly within the ambit of copyright.
You have no right to make modified versions of a program unless
the copyright owner grants you that right.

-- 

Schlingt dreifach einen Kreis um dies! || John Cowan <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
Schliesst euer Aug vor heiliger Schau,  || http://www.reutershealth.com
Denn er genoss vom Honig-Tau,           || http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
Und trank die Milch vom Paradies.            -- Coleridge (tr. Politzer)