RMS on Plan 9 license, with my comments

[Richard Stallman]

    > > 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.

If we could be sure of that interpretation, I would agree this issue
is not a problem.  But I don't think that interpretation is right.
The problem is, it would make the word "reasonable" a no-op.  My
understanding is that judges are reluctant to turn any word into a
license into a no-op; they reason that "the word was put in to
contribute to the meaning, so the meaning must be different somehow
from what it would be without that word."  I believe therefore that
they will tend to reject your interpretation.

It would be interesting to hear a lawyer's advice on this point.

If Lucent intends the interpretation that you propose, they ought to
be willing to delete the word "reasonable" and thus express their
intentions more unambiguously.

    > > 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.

Once again, if we can rely on your interpretation, this clause is not
a problem.  But with another plausible interpretation, we cannot be
certain, and we must accept a license based on wishful thinking.  What
happens if Lucent and a judge adopt the interpretation I saw?

If lawyers assure us that your interpretation is the only one judges
would accept, then we could cross that problem off the list.  But it
would be a good idea to ask Lucent to explicitly agree with the
interpretation, by clarifying the wording.

    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.

If we could rely on your interpretation and conclusions, this would
not be an issue.  My understanding is that the US export regulations
do claim to apply to reexport.  Enforcing them in another country
might be difficult.  However, if the license makes reexport count as
copyright infringement also, enforcing the copyright could be much
easier.