Plan 9 license

[John Cowan]

Lewis Collard scripsit:

> Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as Open Source.
> (No, I'm not trying to start a flamewar here.)

I don't like it either (a judgment which does not apply to the evolving
OSL 1.1), but I don't see how it contravenes the OSD.

> Anyway, this discussion should be about whether the P9L qualifies as
> open source, and as you pointed out the "termination-on-any-IP-lawsuit"
> problem is clearly bad enough to disqualify the license alone.

I don't know.  I see why RMS thinks it's overkill, but does it contravene
the OSD?  I'd like to hear from people on that point.

> On the subject of RMS's article, he considers the Artistic license
> non-free too and in that he is consistent in dismissing the Plan9
> license, which is far more restrictive. (I'd be interested to see his
> comments on the OSL.)

I'd rather he waited for OSL 1.1 to be released.  I think he'd accept it
as free-incompatible-with-GPL.

-- 
John Cowan  jcowan at reutershealth.com  www.ccil.org/~cowan  www.reutershealth.com
"The competent programmer is fully aware of the strictly limited size of his own
skull; therefore he approaches the programming task in full humility, and among
other things he avoids clever tricks like the plague."  --Edsger Dijkstra
--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3