[linux-elitists] Plan 9

Mr.Bad mr.bad@pigdog.org
Mon Jun 4 14:51:18 PDT 2001


>>>>> "AL" == Aaron Lehmann <aaronl@vitelus.com> writes:

    Me> I don't see "the Plan 9 license" listed on OSI:

    Me> http://www.opensource.org/licenses/index.html

    AL> It's not an open source license. Nor is it a free software
    AL> license.

Quit being a cryptic ass. Why NOT?

I'm having a hard time seeing where it doesn't meet the Open Source
definition.

1. Free Redistribution - check

2. Source Code - check

3. Derived Works - check

4. Integrity of Author's Source Code - check (uses this, actually, I think)

5. No Discrimination Against Persons - check 

6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor - check

(There's one tricky part where a commercial contributor who includes
Plan 9 in commercial software indemnifies Lucent against suits based
on the CONTRIBUTOR's works, but I don't think that's really a big
deal, is it? Does that count as "Discrimination against a field of
endeavor"?)

7. Distribution of License - check

(Redistribution requires at least the terms in the Plan 9 license.)

8. License Not Specific To Product - check

9. License Must Not Contaminate other Software - check

I dunno, the only thing I really see is the problem with the Lucida
font, which seems like a pretty dinky problem. What's your point,
Aaron? Why is it not an Open Source license?

~Mr. Bad

-- 
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 Mr. Bad <mr.bad@pigdog.org> | Pigdog Journal | http://pigdog.org/ 
 freenet:MSK@SSK@u1AntQcZ81Y4c2tJKd1M87cZvPoQAge/pigdog+journal//
                  "Cetere, Kartago estas detruenda."
 ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



More information about the linux-elitists mailing list