Plan 9 license
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Fri Nov 1 23:00:29 UTC 2002
Lewis Collard scripsit:
> Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
> (No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.)
I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving
OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD.
> Anyway, this discussion should be about whether the P9L qualifies as
> open source, and as you pointed out the "termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit"
> problem is clearly bad enough to disqualify the license alone.
I don't know. I see why RMS thinks it's overkill, but does it contravene
the OSD? I'd like to hear from people on that point.
> On the subject of RMS's article, he considers the Artistic license
> non-free too and in that he is consistent in dismissing the Plan9
> license, which is far more restrictive. (I'd be interested to see his
> comments on the OSL.)
I'd rather he waited for OSL 1.1 to be released. I think he'd accept it
John Cowan jcowan at reutershealth.com www.ccil.org/~cowan www.reutershealth.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague." --Edsger Dijkstra
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss