From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release
Message-ID: <20021205174434.R1419@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
References: <14ddda316a23859e87ebf64703dfb813@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <14ddda316a23859e87ebf64703dfb813@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from Russ Cox on Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:32:39AM -0500
Date: Thu,  5 Dec 2002 17:44:35 +0200
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2e3af0f0-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:32:39AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> (*) The actual license for u9fs (in the COPYRIGHT file
> in the archive) is:
>
It strikes me as being very close, at least in intent, to the BSD
licence.  I concur with those who believe that having as few
variations as possible from a small set of fundamental "Open Source"
licences is good for the community in general and bad for lawyers,
so in my opinion this particular licence should explicitly model
itself on the BSD one.

Just an opinion, although I think it is advice I'd like to see
followed.

++L

PS: If the code were mine, I'd add the GNU proviso that any derived
works should require disclosure of the source, but there are pros
and cons with that.