Re: [9fans] TODO lists for Plan 9

[C H Forsyth <forsyth@vitanuova.com>]

>>well, if i understood either license
>>then i'd give you a better answer.

i take the usual jaundiced view of someone that with others has spent much time and
treasure getting something sprung out of expensive trade-secret/product status,
and spending even more time and treasure on it:
yes, yes, it's not the GPL or BSD or MIT or ..., but
especially when we now don't even charge for it,  they should be bloody grateful
they got it at all.  nevertheless, each time someone complains in public or private
i dutifully trot off and look again at the inferno licence(s)
and frankly i see little difference in complexity between our Liberal
one and any other, including Plan 9's Lucent Public one.
it follows a standard licence form with
with Licence Grant and Licence Restrictions/Conditions, and generally those
are the key bits.  1.1 you can adapt it; 1.2 you can distribute it as
source or binary provided you keep the licence and notices attached;
1.3 you can offer support etc.  but that's nothing to do with us; make
up your own agreement.  clause 2, the Conditions,
is similar in intent to parts of the GPL in requesting fair play:
a recipient that uses what we provide as Free software is required to reciprocate
(but only to the extent he further distributes things, as opposed to private use).
its phrasing is tighter to prevent some known abuses of the GPL
(dynamically-loaded binary modules, services only on a network.)
there's probably a Plain English award to be had for simplifying it.
i don't think we're being especially difficult.

actually, there's a bigger potential glitch in this case, but it's nothing to do
with Plan 9 so i'd better stop discussing it here!