From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com
Message-Id: <200006132313.TAA24651@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: re: [9fans] Open but not free
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:13:38 -0400
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: ba5a88dc-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

[Disclaimer: in spite of the email address, I am not a member of the
group that developed Plan 9.  Any opinions expressed here are mine
alone].

[snip]
> perhaps the Plan 9
> license does not qualify as Open Source according to the Open Source
> Guidelines of the Open Source Initiative
[snip]
>
> And it is obvious that there are people in the free software
> community, like Richard Stallman, who don't like the license used by
> Bell Labs for releasing the source code.

I don't see what Richard Stallman's opinions have to do with the
OSI's definition at http://www.opensource.org/osd.html.  The
latter doesn't seem too controversial; can anyone see any reason
why the Plan 9 license wouldn't satisfy their definition?

And yes, apparently they do have ``Open Source'' trademarked...