plan-nine.html (9317B)
1 <!--#include virtual="/server/header.html" --> 2 <!-- Parent-Version: 1.96 --> 3 <!-- This page is derived from /server/standards/boilerplate.html --> 4 <!--#set var="TAGS" value="essays licensing non-cpleft" --> 5 <!--#set var="DISABLE_TOP_ADDENDUM" value="yes" --> 6 <title>The Problems of the (Earlier) Plan 9 License 7 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation</title> 8 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/po/plan-nine.translist" --> 9 <!--#include virtual="/server/banner.html" --> 10 <!--#include virtual="/philosophy/ph-breadcrumb.html" --> 11 <!--GNUN: OUT-OF-DATE NOTICE--> 12 <!--#include virtual="/server/top-addendum.html" --> 13 <div class="article reduced-width"> 14 <h2>The Problems of the (Earlier) Plan 9 License</h2> 15 16 <address class="byline">by <a href="https://www.stallman.org/">Richard 17 Stallman</a></address> 18 19 <div class="infobox"> 20 <p><em>Note:</em> This applies to the earlier license used for Plan 9. 21 The current license of Plan 9 does qualify as free software (and also 22 as open source). So this article's specific example is of historical 23 relevance only. Nonetheless, the general point remains valid.</p> 24 </div> 25 <hr class="thin" /> 26 27 <p> 28 When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released 29 as “open source,” I wondered whether it might be free 30 software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that 31 it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are 32 totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See 33 <a href="/philosophy/free-sw.html">gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html</a>.)</p> 34 35 <p> 36 I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when 37 one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license 38 acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as 39 “open source,” they are altering the meaning of that term 40 and thus spreading confusion. (The term “open source” is 41 widely misunderstood; 42 see <a href="/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html">gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html</a>.)</p> 43 44 <p> 45 Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. 46 Some provisions restrict the Plan 9 software so that it is clearly 47 nonfree; others are just extremely obnoxious.</p> 48 49 <p> 50 First, here are the provisions that make the software nonfree.</p> 51 <p> 52 <strong> 53 You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a 54 copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and 55 related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by 56 You if used for any purpose. 57 </strong></p> 58 <p> 59 This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a 60 basic right.</p> 61 <p> 62 <strong> 63 and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost 64 of any media. 65 </strong></p> 66 <p> 67 This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial 68 distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.</p> 69 <p> 70 <strong> 71 Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this 72 grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set 73 forth in this Agreement, 74 </strong></p> 75 <p> 76 This seems to say that when you redistribute you must insist on a contract 77 with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.</p> 78 <p> 79 <strong> 80 1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall 81 terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the 82 terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate 83 in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor 84 and/or another Contributor. 85 </strong></p> 86 <p> 87 This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized 88 that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be 89 legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It 90 would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the 91 license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to 92 enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9 code.</p> 93 <p> 94 <strong> 95 You agree that, if you export or 96 re-export the Licensed Software or any modifications to it, You are 97 responsible for compliance with the United States Export 98 Administration Regulations and hereby indemnify the Original 99 Contributor and all other Contributors for any liability incurred as a 100 result. 101 </strong></p> 102 <p> 103 It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US export 104 control regulations. Laws being what they are, these regulations 105 apply <em>in certain situations</em> regardless of whether they are mentioned 106 in a license; however, requiring them as a license condition can 107 extend their reach to people and activities outside the US 108 government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wrong.</p> 109 <p> 110 A part of the distribution is covered by a further unacceptable 111 restriction:</p> 112 <p> 113 <strong> 114 2.2 No right is granted to Licensee to create derivative works of or 115 to redistribute (other than with the Original Software or a derivative 116 thereof) the screen imprinter fonts identified in subdirectory 117 /lib/font/bit/lucida and printer fonts (Lucida Sans Unicode, Lucida 118 Sans Italic, Lucida Sans Demibold, Lucida Typewriter, Lucida Sans 119 Typewriter83), identified in subdirectory /sys/lib/postscript/font. 120 </strong></p> 121 <p> 122 One part of this collection is free—the Ghostscript fonts that 123 are covered by the GNU GPL. All the rest does not even come 124 close.</p> 125 <p> 126 Aside from those fatal flaws, the license has other obnoxious 127 provisions:</p> 128 <p> 129 <strong> 130 …As such, if You or any Contributor include Licensed 131 Software in a commercial offering (“Commercial 132 Contributor”), such Commercial Contributor agrees to defend 133 and indemnify Original Contributor and all other Contributors 134 (collectively “Indemnified Contributors”) 135 </strong></p> 136 <p> 137 Requiring indemnities from users is quite obnoxious.</p> 138 <p> 139 <strong> 140 Contributors shall have unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide, 141 perpetual, royalty-free rights, to use, reproduce, modify, display, 142 perform, sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, and to grant 143 third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as a 144 part of or with the Licensed Software; 145 </strong></p> 146 <p> 147 This is a variant of 148 the <a href="/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses">NPL</a> 149 asymmetry: you get limited rights to use their code, but they get 150 unlimited rights to use your changes. While this does not by itself 151 disqualify the license as a free software license (if the other 152 problems were corrected), it is unfortunate.</p> 153 </div> 154 155 </div><!-- for id="content", starts in the include above --> 156 <!--#include virtual="/server/footer.html" --> 157 <div id="footer" role="contentinfo"> 158 <div class="unprintable"> 159 160 <p>Please send general FSF & GNU inquiries to 161 <a href="mailto:gnu@gnu.org"><gnu@gnu.org></a>. 162 There are also <a href="/contact/">other ways to contact</a> 163 the FSF. Broken links and other corrections or suggestions can be sent 164 to <a href="mailto:webmasters@gnu.org"><webmasters@gnu.org></a>.</p> 165 166 <p><!-- TRANSLATORS: Ignore the original text in this paragraph, 167 replace it with the translation of these two: 168 169 We work hard and do our best to provide accurate, good quality 170 translations. However, we are not exempt from imperfection. 171 Please send your comments and general suggestions in this regard 172 to <a href="mailto:web-translators@gnu.org"> 173 <web-translators@gnu.org></a>.</p> 174 175 <p>For information on coordinating and contributing translations of 176 our web pages, see <a 177 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 178 README</a>. --> 179 Please see the <a 180 href="/server/standards/README.translations.html">Translations 181 README</a> for information on coordinating and contributing translations 182 of this article.</p> 183 </div> 184 185 <!-- Regarding copyright, in general, standalone pages (as opposed to 186 files generated as part of manuals) on the GNU web server should 187 be under CC BY-ND 4.0. Please do NOT change or remove this 188 without talking with the webmasters or licensing team first. 189 Please make sure the copyright date is consistent with the 190 document. For web pages, it is ok to list just the latest year the 191 document was modified, or published. 192 193 If you wish to list earlier years, that is ok too. 194 Either "2001, 2002, 2003" or "2001-2003" are ok for specifying 195 years, as long as each year in the range is in fact a copyrightable 196 year, i.e., a year in which the document was published (including 197 being publicly visible on the web or in a revision control system). 198 199 There is more detail about copyright years in the GNU Maintainers 200 Information document, www.gnu.org/prep/maintain. --> 201 202 <p>Copyright © 2000, 2021 Richard Stallman</p> 203 204 <p>This page is licensed under a <a rel="license" 205 href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0/">Creative 206 Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License</a>.</p> 207 208 <!--#include virtual="/server/bottom-notes.html" --> 209 210 <p class="unprintable">Updated: 211 <!-- timestamp start --> 212 $Date: 2021/09/10 10:58:36 $ 213 <!-- timestamp end --> 214 </p> 215 </div> 216 </div><!-- for class="inner", starts in the banner include --> 217 </body> 218 </html>