Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 21 Aug 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Aug 2000, David Johnson wrote:
> 
> > The questioner was asking whether it was Open Source. It is not yet
> > "official" Open Source, but it seems to follow the letter of the OSD
> > even if it strays from the general spirit several times.
> 
> I'm not certain I agree with that, myself.  Its requirement that licensees
> choose between licensing Plan 9 and being able to protect their intellectual
> property is particularly onerous.  The right of Bell Labs to demand private
> source is also unacceptable.

I don't see anything in the OSD forbidding the demand of private
derivations. This clause is certainly pretty poor, but it doesn't go
against the *letter* of the OSD.

> > should think that it may be approved at some point, although I
> > have no doubt that they will be asked to change parts of it. Actually,
> > it follows the four RMS definitions of Free Software as well...
> 
> Look more carefully.  The page that lists the four freedoms does not declare
> those four freedoms "absolutely what makes free software." Rather, those
> freedoms, combined with the explanations, discussion, and ideas below, make
> free software. 

To quote from the page in question, "More precisely, it refers to four
kinds of freedom, for the users of the software... A program is free
software if users have all of these freedoms. " This seems to sum it up
for me. The rest is just commentary.

Later on, he does make some clarifications. One of them (I found two)
is: "but what they can and must do is refuse to impose them [export
control regulations] as conditions of use of the program". This may
apply to the Plan 9 license. But whether this clarification is part of
the Free Software definition is, in my mind, debatable, as it still
meets the four necessary and sufficient freedoms stated at the top of
the page.

 -- 
David Johnson
_________________________
<http://www.usermode.org>