Plan 9 license

[David Johnson]

On Mon, 04 Sep 2000, kmself at ix.netcom.com wrote:
> 
> Rather like a car wreck, I can't keep myself from watching.  I see
> sloppy thinking on both sides of this debate.

Guilty as charged! I can be the sloppiest of thinkers at times. I would
make a lousy lawyer.

> > > Or if copyright is the only thing holding back software from
> > > being free, why isn't my public domain binary considered Free Software?
> 
> Failing to read the FSF's licenses discussion, we see.  PD *is* free
> software.  However, it's not copyleft, which addresses an additional set
> of concerns.  Review please for class.

I understood the FSF to mean that PD with_source_code is Free Software.
It is a requirement for Free Software that the source code be
available. My hypothetical case involved a PD binary where the source
code had not been disclosed.

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