Plan 9 license
jcowan at reutershealth.com
Mon Nov 4 03:37:06 UTC 2002
Lawrence E. Rosen scripsit:
> 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
I was a tad unclear here, which seems to have started the trouble.
I meant that it forbids private, undistributed modification unless
it is for *purely* personal use. Under the GPL, I can modify a program,
and if I don't distribute it in binary form, I need not distribute it
in source form either. Not so under the OSL, e.g., if the program
is used in the course of business.
I don't consider this a problem with the OSL, but it does seem
bizarre for OSI to approve the OSL and not the P9L on this ground.
There may be other grounds not to approve the P9L.
Even a refrigerator can conform to the XML John Cowan
Infoset, as long as it has a door sticker jcowan at reutershealth.com
saying "No information items inside". http://www.reutershealth.com
--Eve Maler http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
More information about the License-discuss