From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-Id: <200306171028.h5HASUiV005580@cvs.openbsd.org> To: 9fans@collyer.net From: Theo de Raadt Subject: [9fans] The new ridiculous license Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 04:28:30 -0600 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cdd61216-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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 * * 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. */