Plan 9 license
Lawrence E. Rosen
lrosen at rosenlaw.com
Mon Nov 4 00:59:57 UTC 2002
Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal
modification? Is this the way rumors start? Does OSL 1.1 have that
problem? (See www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html) /Larry Rosen
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Nordell [mailto:tamlin at algonet.se]
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: license-discuss at opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
> Lewis Collard wrote:
> > > > 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).
> > Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as
> Open Source.
> Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have
> the source code, what point would it be in having it?
> Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?!
> By giving someone access to the source code, you have also
> given them the option of rebuilding the software themselves.
> If soneone finds an error in named source, why on earth would
> any sane person want to stop that someone from fixing the bug
> for his/hers personal binary/binaries?
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss