From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: <71f5ddbeb555a37560d0bbda65554265@plan9.bell-labs.com> From: David Presotto To: dgerow@afflictions.org, 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="upas-nfjsfynlhrohxknxzkjtdcttgy" Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:18:43 -0400 Topicbox-Message-UUID: cd6ad564-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --upas-nfjsfynlhrohxknxzkjtdcttgy Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Two changes were made to make it clearer/shorter. The export disclaimer was added because lawyers don't like to leave anything dangling. All the clauses really do address different subjects. 5 and 6 lok real similar and could probably be combined somehow. --upas-nfjsfynlhrohxknxzkjtdcttgy Content-Type: message/rfc822 Content-Disposition: inline Received: from plan9.cs.bell-labs.com ([135.104.9.2]) by plan9; Tue Jun 17 14:05:40 EDT 2003 Received: from mail.cse.psu.edu ([130.203.4.6]) by plan9; Tue Jun 17 14:05:27 EDT 2003 Received: from psuvax1.cse.psu.edu (psuvax1.cse.psu.edu [130.203.20.6]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id B4A7819A94; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:05:09 -0400 (EDT) Delivered-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Received: from pandora.afflictions.org (asylum.afflictions.org [64.7.134.90]) by mail.cse.psu.edu (CSE Mail Server) with ESMTP id 6A29C19A40 for <9fans@cse.psu.edu>; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:04:22 -0400 (EDT) Received: by pandora.afflictions.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 6F38E5ACA0; Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:09 -0400 (EDT) From: Damian Gerow To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license Message-ID: <20030617180709.GF3197@afflictions.org> Mail-Followup-To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu References: <20030617175011.GD3197@afflictions.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: X-Operating-System: FreeBSD 4.8-RC on a i386 X-GPG-Fingerprint: B3D7 D901 A53A 1A99 BFD6 E6DF 9F3B 742B C288 9CC9 User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i 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: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 14:07:09 -0400 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. --upas-nfjsfynlhrohxknxzkjtdcttgy--