From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license Message-ID: <20030620070158.A2250@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <3ef1e77f$0$49117$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl> <6c379b9f498dc6d3fccd4624bc1d6d89@plan9.bell-labs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <6c379b9f498dc6d3fccd4624bc1d6d89@plan9.bell-labs.com>; from David Presotto on Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:51:47PM -0400 Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 07:01:59 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d2370a72-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:51:47PM -0400, David Presotto wrote: > > Nevertheless, I can see why OpenBSD would be afraid of it. > It is true that if OpenBSD agreed to indemnify us, they > could rerelease under their own license so the buck stops > there, so to speak. However, that leaves OpenBSD obligated > in a new way and I could see why they wouldn't like it, > especially since they too are getting no revenue from the code. > It is tempting to think of the FSF as providing an indemnifying role, as they are funded, but (a) they may not have deep enough pockets and (b) they may be less than suitable from the community's point of view. Still, it may be worth considering. Founding a Plan 9 "open source" foundation would be somewhat more difficult. ++L