From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Damian Gerow To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license Message-ID: <20030617180709.GF3197@afflictions.org> References: <20030617175011.GD3197@afflictions.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:09 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cd40e696-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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.