Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

Lewis Collard scripsit:

> The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification

I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source (the OSL 1.1
does not have this problem).

> and doesn't permit
> commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute
> it for profit by claiming the charges are for "support", and allows
> one to aggregate it with other products and then sell it - the latter
> is in compliance with section 1 of the OSD).

How is this different from the following language from 2.1 of the P9L?

# 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, and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for
# the cost of any media. You may also, at Your option, charge for any other
# software, product or service that includes or incorporates the Original
# Software as a part thereof.

For comparison, clause 5 of the Artistic License says:

# 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of
# this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this
# Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you
# may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial)
# programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution
# provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own.

Looks like the same deal to me.

-- 
John Cowan                              <jcowan at reutershealth.com>
http://www.ccil.org/~cowan              http://www.reutershealth.com
Unified Gaelic in Cyrillic script!
        http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3