From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <3946CEE9.FFD6FF75@yahoo.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jun 2000 19:16:41 -0500
From: "James G. Stallings II" <alteridentity@yahoo.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Open but not free
References: <200006132313.TAA24651@cse.psu.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Topicbox-Message-UUID: badd2080-eac8-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

dhog@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:

> [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...

Actually, the people at OSI probably don't see what RMS' opinions have to
with the definition either. Last I heard, they were hardly of a single
mind about anything with RMS...

James




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Talk to your friends online with Yahoo! Messenger.
http://im.yahoo.com