Plan 9 license

David Johnson david at usermode.org
Wed Aug 23 01:42:43 UTC 2000


On Tue, 22 Aug 2000, Matthew C. Weigel wrote:

> ... I would argue the OSD
> was not, is not, and never will be an airtight document whose letter you can
> follow, but whose spirit you can ignore; the letter of the definition was
> largely thrown together, in an attempt to encapsulate the spirit. 

But that's what it is, good or bad. The OSD derived from the Debian
Social Contract, whose purpose was to accurately define what software
could or could not be included in the main distribution.

There is a need for a precise definition of Free Software, and the OSD
fulfills this role nicely. I have a strong suspicion that it is
constantly referred to when OSI has to decide upon a license.  It does
no good to even have this as a definition if it is to be ignored and
the determination of Open Source decided on arbitrary whim.

> ... Others
> can say, "here, approximately, is what Open Source is," but the OSI and the
> open source community should focus on the spirit, and when inconsistencies
> arise, correct the letter, and not say "oh, we forgot to mention that
> freedom, so we'll just roll over and ignore that it was ever important to
> us." 

If the the OSD forgot something important, then it should be ammended.
If some clauses turn out to be vague, they should be clarified.

> Yes, that means people submitting new licenses may be caught by
> surprise; but OSI Certification should not be an assembly line production,
> but a discussion (a discussion including the license's authors, so that
> questions and explanations of intent, that might clarify a clause or get a
> clause changed, can happen).

People who get caught by surprise will end up with a very dim view of
our community. If a corporation follows the OSD and then we turn
around and tell them we were just kidding and here's the next set of
requirements, they'll tell us to go jump in a lake. If they're threading
needles through a few dozen convoluted loopholes, they should be flatly
denied. But if a license honestly follows the definition, then it should
rightly be an Open Source license.

> Yes, four *kinds* of freedom -- to be explained further in the document;
> think of it as an explanation and statement of intent.  The document is not
> the four bullet points, and the clarifications and explanations included
> discuss those four freedoms as RMS sees them.  In order to have those four
> kinds of freedom, there are preconditions, clarifications, and explanations
> involved as well -- as discussed later in the document.

"Four kinds of freedom" followed by a colon, then a list of four items.
Those four in the list *are* the four that are sufficient for software
being free.

These are somewhat vague definitions, though, and the explanation and
clarifications below are a Good Thing(tm). But they are not the
definition of Free Software. As above, if there are missing definitions
from this list, they should be ammended to include them.

Of course there are preconditions to these. That goes without saying.
That the source code must be provided is one of them. However, if a
license can fulfill these four points, then it has already fulfilled
any prerequisites. 

I'm making a big deal out of this because I don't want arbitrary
judgements of morality. Since the FSF claims that this is a matter of
morality, it becomes a big deal. As an example, on another page, RMS
claims that the Artistic License is not free. His reasoning seems to be
that it is vague. If vagueness disqualifies a license from being free,
then people should know it right up front. In every other respect,
including the clarifications and prerequisites mentioned, the AL meets
every definition and then some. That it has been scorned by the FSF
leads me to believe that their definition doesn't matter even to them. 

> 	In order for these freedoms to be real, they must be irrevocable as
> 	long as you do nothing wrong; if the developer of the software has
> 	the power to revoke the license, even though you have not given
> 	cause, the software is not free.
> 
> This goes back to the IP suit clause in the Plan 9 license, and is also
> clearly a requirement for being free software -- you must have the four
> freedoms, and the four freedoms must be real.

By suing Lucent over IP, you *have* given cause for revocation. This
clause is better applied to other licenses, like the APSL, where a
license can be revoked through no action on the user's part.

> No.  If you want to say "necessary and sufficient," then look at it like a
> theorem, and you'll see again what I'm saying.  Each of those conditions
> has, on its own, necessary and sufficient conditions, all of which must be
> satisfied for the condition -- the freedom listed in the bullet point -- to
> be present. 

If a license meets those four points, then it has met all
prerequisites and conditions, QED.

> I'll say it one last time, and then I'll try not argue this point
> with you again.  Without reading the entire document, you are not
> grasping what the four kinds of freedom described are and require;
> claiming to have one of the freedoms, while not providing the fullness
> of that freedom, does not achieve free software status.

No Free Software license provides unconditional "fullness" of those
freedoms. Not one. Not even the GPL or LGPL. To one who believes that
copyrights are wrong, both Plan 9 and the GPL can be considered
tyrannical. Likewise, to a corporate IP lawyer, they both seem equally
nihilistic and libertine. To both sides, this splitting of hairs over
whether Plan 9 is really free of not is ridiculous. You draw the line
three inches to the left while I draw it three inches to the right. So
what? I still grok Free Software, and that I don't grok it the same as
you is of no concern.

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



More information about the License-discuss mailing list