summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
Diffstat (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html')
-rw-r--r--talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/plan-nine.html208
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 &ldquo;open source&rdquo;, 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
+&ldquo;open source&rdquo;, they are altering the meaning of that term
+and thus spreading confusion. (The term &ldquo;open source&rdquo; 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&mdash;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>
+ &hellip;As such, if You or any Contributor include Licensed
+ Software in a commercial offering (&ldquo;Commercial
+ Contributor&rdquo;), such Commercial Contributor agrees to defend
+ and indemnify Original Contributor and all other Contributors
+ (collectively &ldquo;Indemnified Contributors&rdquo;)
+</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 &amp; GNU inquiries to
+<a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org">&lt;gnu@gnu.org&gt;</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">&lt;webmasters@gnu.org&gt;</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">
+ &lt;web-translators@gnu.org&gt;</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 &copy; 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>