9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-19 19:24 ot
  2003-06-19 19:50 ` Dan Cross
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: ot @ 2003-06-19 19:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans


> Ugh. I feel like Charlie Brown. ``Why's everybody always
> picking on me?''

good grief.

> Really? Why? Can you point out something specific I said that
> you think is ignorant? Perhaps that I expressed doubt in the
> OpenBSD team? That's only after eight years of watching the
> various BSD projects go about doing what they do.

it sounds like you either have some personal beef with the
development team, or no experience with BSD unix. the openbsd
team should be commended for their hard work, their os is one
of the best choices out there.

> If you disagree with my impression that's fine, but my opinion
> stands.

opinions that are not based on fact don't count.



Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-07-09  3:33 A. Baker
  2003-07-11  1:41 ` boyd, rounin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: A. Baker @ 2003-07-09  3:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

FYI

http://news.com.com/2008-1082_3-1023765.html?tag=fd_lede2_hed

--------------8<--------------

(c|net's Stephen Shankland)

Do you ever wish you'd opted for a BSD-style license
instead of the General Public License (GPL)? (Unlike
the GPL, BSD-style licenses such as those used for the
Apache Software Foundation Web server and the FreeBSD
Unix offshoot permit open-source code to be made
proprietary.)

(Linux's Linus Torvalds)

Absolutely not. I personally think that the BSD
license is a dead end for serious projects, since it
inevitably results in forking with no way to re-join
if it becomes commercially viable. (Editors' note:
Forking is dividing a programming project into two
different, overlapping projects.)

Forking a project is in my opinion hugely important,
since forks are how all real development gets done,
and the ability to fork keeps everybody honest (i.e.
if you don't do a good job and keep your users happy,
they can always fork the project and go on their own).
But equally important is the ability to join back
forks, when/if some group finds the right solution to
a problem. And that's where the GPL comes in: you can
really think of the whole license as nothing more than
a requirement to be able to re-join a forked project
from either side.

--------------8<--------------

Ouch!


=====
Boojum

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!
http://sbc.yahoo.com


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-20 14:39 Richard C Bilson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Richard C Bilson @ 2003-06-20 14:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

> From: Dan Cross <cross@math.psu.edu>
>
> Another interesting variety was AIX printing, where ``lpd'' wasn't so
> much a printing daemon as it was a generic batch queuing system.  I
> remember once someone who was rather fond of AIX defending it to me by
> telling me, ``what other system do you know where you can kick off a
> batch job using lpr?''  My mind boggled and I utterly failed to come
> up with an appropriate response.  I had already ported Berkeley
> lpd to my AIX machines.

It is interesting to me, in light of this, that Linux lpd has become
the system of choice for discriminating hackers to queue their mp3
files:

  http://patrick.wagstrom.net/weblog/archives/000128.html

Another case of software that is just good enough to prevent a rational
alternative from taking hold.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-20  9:30 Andrew Simmons
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Andrew Simmons @ 2003-06-20  9:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

>> CUPS is silly.

> Things designed by committee usually are.....

Oh now, come on!! What about CORBA and ANSI Standard C++?




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-19 19:59 Scott Schwartz
  2003-06-19 20:08 ` boyd, rounin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: Scott Schwartz @ 2003-06-19 19:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Look guys, flaming other people and other projects is off topic for this
list, in addition to being unamusing.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-19 18:13 ot
  2003-06-19 18:19 ` David Presotto
  2003-06-19 18:50 ` Dan Cross
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: ot @ 2003-06-19 18:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans


as a proponent of both openbsd and plan9, i must say i am
rather disappointed at this turn of events, but it is
understandable none the less.  it would be nice to see
the plan9 toolchain in openbsd, but i'm sure it will be
just fine without it.

cross:

i find your comments regarding the openbsd developers both
ignorant and uncalled-for, especially from somebody who was
complaining about spamming the list with nonsense.  quit
wasting my bandwidth with your childish flames.




Concerned about your privacy? Follow this link to get
FREE encrypted email: https://www.hushmail.com/?l=2

Free, ultra-private instant messaging with Hush Messenger
https://www.hushmail.com/services.php?subloc=messenger&l=434

Big $$$ to be made with the HushMail Affiliate Program:
https://www.hushmail.com/about.php?subloc=affiliate&l=427


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-19  9:34 Keith Nash
  2003-06-19 13:51 ` boyd, rounin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: Keith Nash @ 2003-06-19  9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

On Tuesday 17 June 2003 16:04, Theo de Raadt wrote:

> That is not a license which makes it free.  It is a *contract* with
> consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences
> that I am unwilling to accept.

This is an aspect of open-source license wars that I was not previously aware of.

If the license is a contract, that contract is not enforceable as such in court.  The reason (at least in English law, perhaps someone can comment on NY/USA law) is that for a contract to be created, there must be an exchange of value - i.e. Lucent gives you the software, you have to give them something of value (e.g. cash) in return.

Therefore, no license where the software is given away can be a contract: it is merely a grant of rights to the licensor's copyrighted material (and/or patents and trademarks) - which is exactly what Theo would like it to be.

> Or perhaps you guys are utterly blind to what is happening with IBM
> and SCO right now.

The IBM/SCO case is different, because they have an enforceable contract: IBM paid SCO for certain rights.

Keith.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-18  9:34 Markus Friedl
  2003-06-18 14:45 ` Dan Cross
  2003-06-18 18:40 ` boyd, rounin
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Markus Friedl @ 2003-06-18  9:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

Dan Cross:

> Otherwise, what's your point by sending this garbage to 9fans?  If
> you've got a problem with Bell Labs, take it up with them.  Don't spam
> the rest of us with your misunderstandings of the community's goals.

The whole point of the mail is:

(1) It would be very nice to have the plan9 toolchain replace gcc
    in the Unix world.

(2) Step (1) will probably only happen if the License is much
    more liberal than the gcc license, e.g. an ISC or BSD style license.

Nobody is forcing you to do (2), especially if you don't care about (1).

So (1) might not be the "community"'s goal, but could do a favour to
rest of the world outside of the "community".


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <42999790ecb672f64d9fe046cb284a9d@plan9.bell-labs.com>]
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 18:45 presotto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: presotto @ 2003-06-17 18:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: brownlee, 9fans

On Tue Jun 17 14:15:16 EDT 2003, brownlee@acm.org wrote:
> To avoid having to indemnify contributors, couldn't
> a distributor offer a license which disclaims as
> much as possible AND requires a distributee
> to accept the Lucent license?

The distributor indemnifies against the consequences of his actions.
The distributor is not indemnifying the contributors against the results
of their actions (unless of course he misrepresents their claims when
distributing).

>
> To distribute and have to indemnify the contributors could be risky.

If a contributor could be sued for something stupid that a distributor
did, wouldln't it be risky to contribute?


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 18:18 David Presotto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2003-06-17 18:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dgerow, 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 263 bytes --]

Two changes were made to make it clearer/shorter.  The export
disclaimer was added because lawyers don't like to leave
anything dangling.

All the clauses really do address different subjects.
5 and 6 lok real similar and could probably be combined
somehow.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2649 bytes --]

From: Damian Gerow <dgerow@afflictions.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:09 -0400
Message-ID: <20030617180709.GF3197@afflictions.org>

Thus spake Russ Cox (rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com) [17/06/03 14:01]:
> The version that OSI approved is at
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/approved-template.html
> but it's not what we're using.  We're using the one
> that I posted a link to before:
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/newlicense.html.

Any reason the OSI-approved license was dropped?  Why move to a new license
after one was approved?

IMO, the entire license can be reduced to just Clause 5.  I'm no legalese
expert, but it feels like everything else is just a specific instance of
Clause 5.

Everything in the license basically states over and over again that the
Contributor(s) are not responsible for the Receiver(s) performing action X.
If Clause 5 already says that, just not in so many words, why bother going
to the trouble of pointing everything out?

Even Clause 5 itself is repetitive -- the portion in CAPS seems to be fairly
clear to me, as to what the license is.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 18:01 David Presotto
  2003-06-18  2:55 ` Andrey S. Kukhar
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2003-06-17 18:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: dgerow, 9fans

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 281 bytes --]

The amendments aren't hidden.  The license you looked at

	http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/newlicense.html

is the final one.  The thing you didn't notice was the line at the
top that said that this was different than what OSI had approved
and a pointer to the differences.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1949 bytes --]

From: Damian Gerow <dgerow@afflictions.org>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 13:50:12 -0400
Message-ID: <20030617175011.GD3197@afflictions.org>

Thus spake Russ Cox (rsc@plan9.bell-labs.com) [17/06/03 12:42]:
> You might notice that OSI didn't approve clause 7.
> (See http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/osi-diff.html.)

So is there a final revision of the license that we can read, without having
to include external amendments that are 'hidden'?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
[parent not found: <cf335ed380f1abb103f54acc1a307830@plan9.bell-labs.com>]
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 17:09 David Presotto
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: David Presotto @ 2003-06-17 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: deraadt, 9fans

Thank you for the comments.  I'll answer them as best I can though
I fear any answer will be insufficient since I really can't change
the license substantially.

> That is not a license which makes it free.  It is a *contract* with
> consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences
> that I am unwilling to accept.

That's clearly for you to decide.  Though legally this is not a contract,
It does obligate the recipient which is probably what you mean.

> Note that I sell OpenBSD CDs to fund our project.  That contract right
> there says in term 7:
>
>	If Theo accidentally sells a CD to
>	North Korea, the US can fuck him.

Nice paraphrase and it is indeed true.  However, not because of what the
license says:

	Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance with
	the United States export administration regulations (and the export control
	laws and regulation of any other countries) and hereby indemnifies the
	Contributors for any liability incurred as a result of the Recipients
	actions which result in any violation of any such laws and regulations.

If Theo accidentally (or not) sells a CD to North Korea, then the US can 'fuck' him,
so to speak, with or without this clause (assuming he's living in the US or
in a country the US can lean on).  The best he can claim as mitigation
is that he didn't know that there might be applicable export controls or
that he did it by accident.  What the clause does do is point out that
he was told, that its his accident and the weight falls on him, not the
contributors.  If he does something to bring the gov down on him, its
on him and not the whole community.  That of course will not make Theo
feel very good.

As far as I know, the only thing that really is covered by the US regulations
is the crypto but that's beside the point.  If you know better than I do (as
well you might, I haven't checked lately) i.e., if you think that the
export regulations no longer apply to such software please tell me.

Of couse then this clause shouldn't bother you because there are no
reguations whose infringement you need to indemnify contributors against.

By the way, this clause has NOT been accepted by OpenSource as the pointer
at the top of the license points out.  The license they accepted
does not contain it.

>It also says in term 4:
>
>	Sell this in a product in ways which "we" do not like, and the
>	contract you have accepted says you can be fucked by anyone
>	who owns this license later and who decides they want to fuck you.

If the lawyers you talk to read it as you described it, then I'ld like to
talk with them.  Please have them contact me.  We've gone over this with
both our lawyer and with the IBM laywer that drafted the CPL and this
reading astounds us all.

This clause comes pretty much intact from the IBM PL.  It means that
should you commercially distribute (sell) this product, and as a result
of that someone sues because of 'your acts and ommissions', that you will
protect the contributors in that suit.

Of course, this may also not be acceptable to you, but that's a different
story.

As for the rest, I agree.  My original wording for the license was:

	take the software and do whatever you'ld like with it

Since we're a big company with seemingly big pockets (though mostly empty
these days) and we do get sued a lot as a result.  Whether or not we're
in the right its still damed expensive.  Therefore, we can't release
software without the cover your ass clauses.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 16:52 Theo de Raadt
  2003-06-17 17:10 ` Dan Cross
                   ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Theo de Raadt @ 2003-06-17 16:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: rsc; +Cc: 9fans, deraadt

It's too difficult for me to explain in full details how much of this
license is not acceptable to us.  But it clearly is not acceptable to
us.

We have an entire operating system (minus a touch of GPL and LGPL here
and there, one sendmail license, and a few smatterings of Artistic)
that has NO CONTRACTS -- every license is simply "copyright law term
dismissal + warranty disclaimer".  That is free; these licenses make
no new requirements of anyone; they do not require or re-state
anything that is already the way it is.  The BSD licenses we have
simply take rights granted by copyright law to the author, and they
serve to allow the author to give up all of those rights (except the
copyright law right to be known as the author).  These licenses ask
for nothing in return; they do not even restate anything that another
law might make a problem -- because there is no need to state it!

We can't accept this license as it is. I note your meeting notes said
that a goal had been to allow OpenBSD to use parts from this (in
particular we were interested in the c compiler).  I think someone did
not listen to us, or understand what a BSD-licensed operating system
has as a goal -- as this is, the plan9 components are now no more free
for us to use than they were weeks ago.

sure; you have a new license.  That will be good for some people.  Too
bad it does not go far enough for the needs of a BSD licensed system.
It's just incompatible.  It would be the most onerous license in our
tree (well there is the GPL, but year by year we remove and replace
more and more GPL software in our tree... we had hoped to replace the
c compiler in the long term with a free one...)


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 16:38 Russ Cox, rsc
  2003-06-17 17:13 ` David Presotto
  2003-06-17 17:50 ` Damian Gerow
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Russ Cox, rsc @ 2003-06-17 16:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: deraadt, 9fans

> Note that I sell OpenBSD CDs to fund our project.  That contract right
> there says in term 7:
>
> 	If Theo accidentally sells a CD to
> 	North Korea, the US can fuck him.

You might notice that OSI didn't approve clause 7.
(See http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/osi-diff.html.)

  7. EXPORT CONTROL

  Recipient agrees that Recipient alone is responsible for compliance
  with the United States export administration regulations (and the
  export control laws and regulation of any other countries) and hereby
  indemnifies the Contributors for any liability incurred as a result of
  the Recipients actions which result in any violation of any such laws
  and regulations.

If Theo lives in the U.S. and sells a CD to North Korea,
Theo has broken U.S. law regardless of whether section 7 exists.
If Theo lives outside the U.S. and sells a CD to North Korea,
Theo is fine regardless of whether section 7 exists.

> It also says in term 4:
>
> 	Sell this in a product in ways which "we" do not like, and the
> 	contract you have accepted says you can be fucked by anyone
> 	who owns this license later and who decides they want to fuck you.

Where does it say this?  I see that if you put our software
in PostScript printers claiming that it's bulletproof and then
it turns out not to be, then it's your butt on the line not ours
since we never said it was bulletproof.

Russ


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 16:04 Theo de Raadt
  2003-06-17 17:02 ` C H Forsyth
                   ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 105+ messages in thread
From: Theo de Raadt @ 2003-06-17 16:04 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

	http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/newlicense.html

[and whichever other versions are proposed..]

The new license is utterly unacceptable for use in a BSD project.

Actually, I am astounded that the OSI would declare such a license
acceptable.

That is not a license which makes it free.  It is a *contract* with
consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences
that I am unwilling to accept.

Note that I sell OpenBSD CDs to fund our project.  That contract right
there says in term 7:

	If Theo accidentally sells a CD to
	North Korea, the US can fuck him.

Thanks OSI.  Thanks for being so damn patriotic.

It also says in term 4:

	Sell this in a product in ways which "we" do not like, and the
	contract you have accepted says you can be fucked by anyone
	who owns this license later and who decides they want to fuck you.

Who is "we".  You don't read term 4 that way?  Lawyers I talk to read
it that way.  If lawyers I talk to read it that way, why the heck
would I risk ever in the future ending up in a court room with lawyers
who might argue against me like my lawyers suggest might be possible?
I would be stupid to accept such a term.  And come on it says "certain
responsibilities".  Good god.  Are you people dumb to accept such a
term in a legal document?  It is like "your house mortgage can be
considered invalid in certain situations and then we own your house".

Or perhaps you guys are utterly blind to what is happening with IBM
and SCO right now.

The license you propose is NOT FREE SOFTWARE.  I am astounded the OSI
has gone and decided to become an organization that just rubber stamps
things which are not free.  I don't know who they are talking to, but
these "licenses" which they approve are chock full of constraints
against various segments of the user community.

Wisen up plan9 guys -- keep your software commercial or just make it
free.  Say "Public domain" or say "Copyright us, do anything except
don't claim someone else wrote it", -- or keep it commercial.  These
continual lies wrapped up in contract law are ... such a farce -- why
is it that none of you have the guts to just give it away like the
good people at Berkeley did years and years ago?  Are you really that
gutless?  Did Kirk and Keith and Kirk really understand something
about freedom which you guys don't?  Are all of you really that
trapped that you can't escape the legal frameworks presented to you by
lawyers?  Were those Berkeley guys on drugs when they decided to make
all that stuff "free except give us credit", and like wow man,
suddenly all sorts of stuff from sockets to half of libc ended up
being based on their cope.  Or is it the plan9 people who hold major
delusions?

We've made OpenSSH so free that it is being included not just in
generic purpose operating systems, but also in routers, switches, and
reportedly soon even in POSTSCRIPT PRINTERS... from *major vendors*...
because we are FED UP with one-off crap security software being put
into these devices; because MY security depends on the security of
YOUR NETWORK DEVICE; hence we would rather supply a complete 'plug and
play' solution that any vendor can just merge into their product
BECAUSE THE LICENSE IS UTTERLY STARK AND CLEAR AND FREE.  But
increasingly I am becoming convinces that anyone who has ever worked
for AT&T or Bell Labs does not UNDERSTAND what makes networks more
secure -- and it is, surprise, FREE DISCLOSURE OF THE SIMPLE STUFF.

Were we on Berkeley drugs when we decided to make OpenSSH that free?

Who on this list is using OpenSSH?  Who wants to use something less
free instead?

Put another way... do you guys have some kick ass technology that you
want to change the world, or don't you?  The latest rave vibe on the
internet appears to be that free software is changing the world a lot.
You don't want to be part of that?  Besides being part of all *BSD and
Linux operating systems, OpenSSH is also part of most non-Linux
Unix-like operating systems, but you might have noticed that many of
those systems do not ship with other GNU software by default; like
pick Solaris.  Solaris includes OpenSSH.  Name some GNU software
included by default, ok?  The point is, a SSH server MATTERS.  That
there is a free one matters even more.

There's a reason.  You write a license like you have written here, and
vendors get afraid.  I urge you to write something much simpler.

I am willing to speak this way because after two years of discussion
with plan9 people, it has become clear to me that this compiler will
never be free enough for us to use.  If that changes as a result of
this mail, good.  If not, fine -- I have given up hope.

I urge everyone in power regarding this issue to think this through --
and then, make your simple compiler which we can build into a trusted
component FREE, or, if you don't, sometime in the next few years
something else which is simple and matches it in power, can and might
and probably will show up (because it is clear the gnu bloat compiler
will never achieve such a goal...)

After all, why would you spend so much effort building something so
kick-ass if in the end very few people use it.

- ---

Below is an example license to be used for new code in OpenBSD,
modeled after the ISC license.

It is important to specify the year of the copyright.  Additional years
should be separated by a comma, e.g.
    Copyright (c) 2003, 2004

If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to
add further restrictions.

/*
 * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread
* [9fans] The new ridiculous license
@ 2003-06-17 10:28 Theo de Raadt
  2003-06-17 20:49 ` boyd, rounin
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 105+ messages in thread
From: Theo de Raadt @ 2003-06-17 10:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: 9fans

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/hidden/newlicense.html

[and whichever other versions are proposed..]

The new license is utterly unacceptable for use in a BSD project.

Actually, I am astounded that the OSI would declare such a license
acceptable.

That is not a license which makes it free.  It is a *contract* with
consequences; let me be clear -- it is a contract with consequences
that I am unwilling to accept.

Note that I sell OpenBSD CDs to fund our project.  That contract right
there says in term 7:

	If Theo accidentally sells a CD to
	North Korea, the US can fuck him.

Thanks OSI.  Thanks for being so damn patriotic.

It also says in term 4:

	Sell this in a product in ways which "we" do not like, and the
	contract you have accepted says you can be fucked by anyone
	who owns this license later and who decides they want to fuck you.

Who is "we".  You don't read term 4 that way?  Lawyers I talk to read
it that way.  If lawyers I talk to read it that way, why the heck
would I risk ever in the future ending up in a court room with lawyers
who might argue against me like my lawyers suggest might be possible?
I would be stupid to accept such a term.  And come on it says "certain
responsibilities".  Good god.  Are you people dumb to accept such a
term in a legal document?  It is like "your house mortgage can be
considered invalid in certain situations and then we own your house".

Or perhaps you guys are utterly blind to what is happening with IBM
and SCO right now.

The license you propose is NOT FREE SOFTWARE.  I am astounded the OSI
has gone and decided to become an organization that just rubber stamps
things which are not free.  I don't know who they are talking to, but
these "licenses" which they approve are chock full of constraints
against various segments of the user community.

Wisen up plan9 guys -- keep your software commercial or just make it
free.  Say "Public domain" or say "Copyright us, do anything except
don't claim someone else wrote it", -- or keep it commercial.  These
continual lies wrapped up in contract law are ... such a farce -- why
is it that none of you have the guts to just give it away like the
good people at Berkeley did years and years ago?  Are you really that
gutless?  Did Kirk and Keith and Kirk really understand something
about freedom which you guys don't?  Are all of you really that
trapped that you can't escape the legal frameworks presented to you by
lawyers?  Were those Berkeley guys on drugs when they decided to make
all that stuff "free except give us credit", and like wow man,
suddenly all sorts of stuff from sockets to half of libc ended up
being based on their cope.  Or is it the plan9 people who hold major
delusions?

We've made OpenSSH so free that it is being included not just in
generic purpose operating systems, but also in routers, switches, and
reportedly soon even in POSTSCRIPT PRINTERS... from *major vendors*...
because we are FED UP with one-off crap security software being put
into these devices; because MY security depends on the security of
YOUR NETWORK DEVICE; hence we would rather supply a complete 'plug and
play' solution that any vendor can just merge into their product
BECAUSE THE LICENSE IS UTTERLY STARK AND CLEAR AND FREE.  But
increasingly I am becoming convinces that anyone who has ever worked
for AT&T or Bell Labs does not UNDERSTAND what makes networks more
secure -- and it is, surprise, FREE DISCLOSURE OF THE SIMPLE STUFF.

Were we on Berkeley drugs when we decided to make OpenSSH that free?

Who on this list is using OpenSSH?  Who wants to use something less
free instead?

Put another way... do you guys have some kick ass technology that you
want to change the world, or don't you?  The latest rave vibe on the
internet appears to be that free software is changing the world a lot.
You don't want to be part of that?  Besides being part of all *BSD and
Linux operating systems, OpenSSH is also part of most non-Linux
Unix-like operating systems, but you might have noticed that many of
those systems do not ship with other GNU software by default; like
pick Solaris.  Solaris includes OpenSSH.  Name some GNU software
included by default, ok?  The point is, a SSH server MATTERS.  That
there is a free one matters even more.

There's a reason.  You write a license like you have written here, and
vendors get afraid.  I urge you to write something much simpler.

I am willing to speak this way because after two years of discussion
with plan9 people, it has become clear to me that this compiler will
never be free enough for us to use.  If that changes as a result of
this mail, good.  If not, fine -- I have given up hope.

I urge everyone in power regarding this issue to think this through --
and then, make your simple compiler which we can build into a trusted
component FREE, or, if you don't, sometime in the next few years
something else which is simple and matches it in power, can and might
and probably will show up (because it is clear the gnu bloat compiler
will never achieve such a goal...)

After all, why would you spend so much effort building something so
kick-ass if in the end very few people use it.

---

Below is an example license to be used for new code in OpenBSD,
modeled after the ISC license.

It is important to specify the year of the copyright.  Additional years
should be separated by a comma, e.g.
    Copyright (c) 2003, 2004

If you add extra text to the body of the license, be careful not to
add further restrictions.

/*
 * Copyright (c) CCYY YOUR NAME HERE <user@your.dom.ain>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
 * purpose with or without fee is hereby granted, provided that the above
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in all copies.
 *
 * THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE AUTHOR DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES
 * WITH REGARD TO THIS SOFTWARE INCLUDING ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
 * MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHOR BE LIABLE FOR
 * ANY SPECIAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OR ANY DAMAGES
 * WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM LOSS OF USE, DATA OR PROFITS, WHETHER IN AN
 * ACTION OF CONTRACT, NEGLIGENCE OR OTHER TORTIOUS ACTION, ARISING OUT OF
 * OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE USE OR PERFORMANCE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
 */


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 105+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2003-07-11  1:41 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 105+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2003-06-19 19:24 [9fans] The new ridiculous license ot
2003-06-19 19:50 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-19 19:56   ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-30 14:13     ` [9fans] dennis quote? matt
2003-06-30 17:22       ` boyd, rounin
2003-07-01  9:36         ` matt
2003-07-03  9:42       ` Clint Olsen
2003-07-03 10:37         ` Anthony Mandic
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-07-09  3:33 [9fans] The new ridiculous license A. Baker
2003-07-11  1:41 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-20 14:39 Richard C Bilson
2003-06-20  9:30 Andrew Simmons
2003-06-19 19:59 Scott Schwartz
2003-06-19 20:08 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 18:13 ot
2003-06-19 18:19 ` David Presotto
2003-06-20  8:39   ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2003-06-19 18:50 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-19 18:55   ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19  9:34 Keith Nash
2003-06-19 13:51 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 13:54   ` David Presotto
2003-06-19 14:09     ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 16:44   ` Erik Terpstra
2003-06-19 17:13     ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 17:35     ` Dan Cross
2003-06-19 17:52       ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 21:33         ` Jack Johnson
2003-06-20 14:05           ` Jason Gurtz
2003-06-20 14:08             ` Lucio De Re
2003-06-20 14:30               ` Jason Gurtz
2003-06-19 21:34         ` Jack Johnson
2003-06-19 23:19           ` Dan Cross
2003-06-20  1:52             ` George Michaelson
2003-06-20  2:32               ` Geoff Collyer
2003-06-20  2:40                 ` Geoff Collyer
2003-06-20  6:55                   ` Dan Cross
2003-06-20  2:56                 ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-06-20  2:43               ` Stephen Wynne
2003-06-20  6:54               ` Dan Cross
2003-06-20  7:05                 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-23  8:56                 ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2003-06-23 15:22                 ` rog
2003-06-20  8:20           ` John Murdie
2003-06-20 15:31             ` splite
2003-06-20 17:24               ` John Murdie
2003-06-19 17:51     ` David Presotto
2003-06-19 18:15       ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-19 20:14         ` ron minnich
2003-06-23  8:58           ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2003-06-20  5:01       ` Lucio De Re
2003-06-18  9:34 Markus Friedl
2003-06-18 14:45 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-18 14:48   ` andrey mirtchovski
2003-06-18 16:21     ` northern snowfall
2003-06-18 15:41       ` Markus Friedl
2003-06-18 16:32         ` northern snowfall
2003-06-18 17:12         ` Charles Forsyth
2003-06-18 16:22     ` Dan Cross
2003-06-18 17:09     ` Charles Forsyth
2003-06-20  7:52   ` Markus Friedl
2003-06-18 18:40 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-18 20:25   ` ron minnich
2003-06-18 21:01     ` rob pike, esq.
2003-06-18 21:04     ` Jack Johnson
2003-06-18 21:02       ` boyd, rounin
     [not found] <42999790ecb672f64d9fe046cb284a9d@plan9.bell-labs.com>
2003-06-17 21:56 ` Donald Brownlee
2003-06-17 18:45 presotto
2003-06-17 18:18 David Presotto
2003-06-17 18:01 David Presotto
2003-06-18  2:55 ` Andrey S. Kukhar
     [not found] <cf335ed380f1abb103f54acc1a307830@plan9.bell-labs.com>
2003-06-17 17:33 ` Theo de Raadt
2003-06-17 17:09 David Presotto
2003-06-17 16:52 Theo de Raadt
2003-06-17 17:10 ` Dan Cross
2003-06-17 18:26   ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-18  8:58 ` ozan s yigit
2003-06-18 14:52   ` Dan Cross
2003-07-03  9:41 ` Wesley Parish
2003-07-03 17:29   ` D. Brownlee
2003-06-17 16:38 Russ Cox, rsc
2003-06-17 17:13 ` David Presotto
2003-06-17 17:50 ` Damian Gerow
2003-06-17 17:57   ` Russ Cox, rsc
2003-06-17 18:07     ` Damian Gerow
2003-06-17 16:04 Theo de Raadt
2003-06-17 17:02 ` C H Forsyth
2003-06-17 18:15   ` Charles Forsyth
2003-06-17 18:38 ` Tom Glinos
2003-06-17 17:46   ` Russ Cox, rsc
2003-06-17 21:27     ` Tom Glinos
2003-06-17 18:13   ` Donald Brownlee
2003-06-17 20:39 ` northern snowfall
2003-06-17 21:19   ` northern snowfall
2003-06-18 10:11 ` matt
2003-06-17 10:28 Theo de Raadt
2003-06-17 20:49 ` boyd, rounin
2003-06-17 21:01   ` David Presotto
2003-06-17 21:26     ` Jack Johnson
2003-06-17 21:28     ` Dan Cross
2003-06-20 12:31       ` Ralph Corderoy
2003-06-20 12:57         ` matt
2003-06-23  8:56         ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2003-06-23  9:02         ` Anthony Mandic
2003-06-23 14:45           ` Jack Johnson

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).