From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Sat,  6 May 2000 13:28:07 -0700
From: Richard Uhtenwoldt ru@ohio.river.org
Subject: [9fans] Plan 9's future licenses
Topicbox-Message-UUID: a7c82c38-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025
Message-ID: <20000506202807.I0qM1DP_1Kb5__vw4L9KyQAIonYyfd6tUDilT7GbDWs@z>

summary: the lifting of the no-commercial-use provision would prove
a major win, but what you end up with is still not as good as
an open-source license,  from my point of view.

the success of Linux depended not only on core OS hackers but also on the
many thousands who made a small contribution: adopted the OS when it was
still difficult to install and use, wrote a driver for an obscure
device, ported a small program, wrote a Mini-HOWTO, packaged up programs
as RPMs or DEBs.  I'm writing from the point of view of a potential
small-contributor to Plan 9.

G. David Butler writes:

> [Solaris] is not
>"open" in the same way as Linux.  Plan 9 is "open" too, but in a
>different way.  There is nothing that keeps us from adding to the
>system and sharing that code (we do it all the time).  And it is even
>more "open" than Solaris because we can create derivative works that
>change the API as necessary (e.g. my create(2) change.)

"we do it all the time" is not a guarantee that Plan 9's owner will not
interfere with your doing it in the future.  worse: Plan 9's owner can
probably prevent you from continuing to distribute improvements we have
already made.

licensees of Unix in the 70s and early 80s exchanged works derived from
Unix "all the time", the most famous such distribution being BSD.  after
Unix had become commercially important and the regulations that prevented
them from entering the computing market were lifted, ATT changed their
attitude toward this practice, with the result that BSD entered legal
limbo for years, during which time it was unclear whether BSD was legal
to use or whether BSD had a future.  today Linux has 10 times the number
of users as BSD, and commentators other than I have cited the period of
legal limbo as a reason.

moreover, source code for IBM's mainframe OSes were made available for
many years to IBM's customers.  these customers shared their changes all
the time.  in fact, the mainframers were the only ones who could afford
regularly to attend the OS-specific conferences that were the best way
for programmers to share their changes before the Internet became
available for this purpose.  then IBM stopped making source code
available, to slow down their competitors, the plug-compatible
manufacturers.  this raised such a cry that IBM had to relent partially,
by making the source available on microfilm.  still, that was enough
of a restriction to interfere with users' ability to enjoy fully
the fruits of changes that had already been made and shared.

can anyone read the current shrinkwrap license for Plan 9 and assure me
that if I were to invest my time modifying Plan 9 that I would
always be able to make those changes (in the form of modified source
code or diff or boodle) available on the Web or via FTP?  I do not think
so because even diffs and boodles are considered by our courts to be
derived works.

the reply that if my changes are any good then Plan 9's owner will
incorporate them into future versions of Plan 9 will not assuage me, for
it lets the owner capture too much of my work: I do not despise the
profit motive and I do not flinch from paying Plan 9's $350 price, but I
do not think it is good for my society for me to choose to devote my
creativity and mental energy in ways that can be "captured" by
profit-motivated businessmen and lawyers (or power-motivated
politicians, btw).