diff options
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html')
-rw-r--r-- | talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html | 208 |
1 files changed, 208 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..bad415b --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html @@ -0,0 +1,208 @@ +<!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> +<!-- Parent-Version: 1.77 --> +<title>The Problems of the Plan 9 License +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> +<!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/plan-nine.translist" --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> +<h2>The Problems of the (Earlier) Plan 9 License</h2> + +<p>by <a href="http://www.stallman.org/"><strong>Richard Stallman</strong></a></p> + +<p><em>Note:</em> This applies to the earlier license used for Plan 9. +The current license of Plan 9 does qualify as free software (and also +as open source). So this article's specific example is of historical +relevance only. Nonetheless, the general point remains valid.</p> + +<hr /> + +<p> +When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released +as “open source”, I wondered whether it might be free +software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that +it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are +totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See +<a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>.)</p> + +<p> +I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when +one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license +acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as +“open source”, they are altering the meaning of that term +and thus spreading confusion. (The term “open source” is +widely misunderstood; +see <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a>.)</p> + +<p> +Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. +Some provisions restrict the Plan 9 software so that it is clearly +nonfree; others are just extremely obnoxious.</p> + +<p> +First, here are the provisions that make the software nonfree.</p> +<p> +<strong> + You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a + copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and + related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by + You if used for any purpose. +</strong></p> +<p> +This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a +basic right.</p> +<p> +<strong> + and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost + of any media. +</strong></p> +<p> +This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial +distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.</p> +<p> +<strong> + Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this + grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set + forth in this Agreement, +</strong></p> +<p> +This seems to say that when you redistribute you must insist on a contract +with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.</p> +<p> +<strong> + 1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall + terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the + terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate + in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor + and/or another Contributor. +</strong></p> +<p> +This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized +that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be +legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It +would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the +license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to +enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9 code.</p> +<p> +<strong> + You agree that, if you export or + re-export the Licensed Software or any modifications to it, You are + responsible for compliance with the United States Export + Administration Regulations and hereby indemnify the Original + Contributor and all other Contributors for any liability incurred as a + result. +</strong></p> +<p> +It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US export +control regulations. Laws being what they are, these regulations +apply <em>in certain situations</em> regardless of whether they are mentioned +in a license; however, requiring them as a license condition can +extend their reach to people and activities outside the US +government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wrong.</p> +<p> +A part of the distribution is covered by a further unacceptable +restriction:</p> +<p> +<strong> +2.2 No right is granted to Licensee to create derivative works of or + to redistribute (other than with the Original Software or a derivative + thereof) the screen imprinter fonts identified in subdirectory + /lib/font/bit/lucida and printer fonts (Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida + Sans Italic, Lucida Sans Demibold, Lucida Typewriter, Lucida Sans + Typewriter83), identified in subdirectory /sys/lib/postscript/font. +</strong></p> +<p> +One part of this collection is free—the Ghostscript fonts that +are covered by the GNU GPL. All the rest does not even come +close.</p> +<p> +Aside from those fatal flaws, the license has other obnoxious +provisions:</p> +<p> +<strong> + …As such, if You or any Contributor include Licensed + Software in a commercial offering (“Commercial + Contributor”), such Commercial Contributor agrees to defend + and indemnify Original Contributor and all other Contributors + (collectively “Indemnified Contributors”) +</strong></p> +<p> +Requiring indemnities from users is quite obnoxious.</p> +<p> +<strong> + Contributors shall have unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide, + perpetual, royalty-free rights, to use, reproduce, modify, display, + perform, sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, and to grant + third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as a + part of or with the Licensed Software; +</strong></p> +<p> +This is a variant of +the <a href="/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses">NPL</a> +asymmetry: you get limited rights to use their code, but they get +unlimited rights to use your changes. While this does not by itself +disqualify the license as a free software license (if the other +problems were corrected), it is unfortunate.</p> + +</div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> +<!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> +<div id="footer"> +<div class="unprintable"> + +<p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to +<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. +There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> +the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent +to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> + +<p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, + replace it with the translation of these two: + + We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality + translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. + Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard + to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> + <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> + + <p>For information on coordinating and submitting translations of + our web pages, see <a + href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations + README</a>. --> +Please see the <a +href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations +README</a> for information on coordinating and submitting translations +of this article.</p> +</div> + +<!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to + files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should + be under CC BY-ND 3.0 US. Please do NOT change or remove this + without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. + Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the + document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the + document was modified, or published. + + If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. + Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying + years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable + year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including + being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). + + There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers + Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> + +<p>Copyright © 2000 Richard Stallman</p> + +<p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" +href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/us/">Creative +Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 United States License</a>.</p> + +<!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> + +<p class="unprintable">Updated: +<!-- timestamp start --> +$Date: 2014/04/12 12:40:34 $ +<!-- timestamp end --> +</p> +</div> +</div> +</body> +</html> |