From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <6abc29e2d3c8f16cce78bc841c5da00c@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: David Presotto To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license In-Reply-To: <002301c33669$e2f6d8c0$e3944251@insultant.net> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-ztllbefcfkvwlfwdlfeigcgdaa" Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:54:59 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cfdd806c-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-ztllbefcfkvwlfwdlfeigcgdaa Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Follow the Part 772 link on our download page. That's the denied parties list. --upas-ztllbefcfkvwlfwdlfeigcgdaa Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Thu Jun 19 09:52:28 EDT 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Thu Jun 19 09:52:25 EDT 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.23.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 6068419A2F; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:52:10 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from smtp.noos.fr (nan-smtp-11.noos.net [212.198.2.82]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 27122199BE for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Thu, 19 Jun 2003 09:51:43 -0400 (EDT) Received: (qmail 91427073 invoked by uid 0); 19 Jun 2003 13:51:34 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO coma) ([81.66.148.227]) (envelope-sender ) by 212.198.2.82 (qmail-ldap-1.03) with SMTP for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; 19 Jun 2003 13:51:34 -0000 Message-ID: <002301c33669$e2f6d8c0$e3944251@insultant.net> From: "boyd, rounin" To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> References: <20030619093435.13228.qmail@mail.dirac.net> Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1158 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1165 Sender: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu Errors-To: 9fans-admin@cse.psu.edu X-BeenThere: 9fans@cse.psu.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.11 Precedence: bulk Reply-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu List-Id: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans.cse.psu.edu> List-Archive: Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2003 15:51:26 +0200 > If the license is a contract, that contract is not enforceable as such in court. > The reason (at least in English law, perhaps someone can comment on > NY/USA law) is that for a contract to be created, there must be an exchange > of value - i.e. Lucent gives you the software, you have to give them something > of value (e.g. cash) in return. UK law, a contract has three things: - offer [the thing being sold] - acceptance [when you say 'i wanna buy it'] - consideration [the thing given, usually money, so that you get the thing you want] that's a common law thing. contracts are usually things that you sign that both sides are bound by. however, having said that, in sweden (god forbid) if there's a typo in the contract and you buy, say, volvo for 1 €re, the court will quash the contract because it's 'obviously' 'wrong'. i suspect that the 'problem' with the plan 9 licence is because lucent is a us company who must comply with ITAR, the Denied Parties List, and various other export controls -- take it up with the us govt. end user certificates, etc etc ... eg. i can tell you of the existance of the Denied Parties List [DPL], but i cannot tell you who's on it. it's so long ago i did the DPL stuff i don't even want to talk about it, but it still applies to me. i do find it _hysterical_ that the BSD boys want the plan 9 compilers. --upas-ztllbefcfkvwlfwdlfeigcgdaa--