Subject: RE: Plan 9 license
From: "Lawrence E. Rosen" <lrosen@rosenlaw.com>
Date: Sun, 3 Nov 2002 16:59:57 -0800

Why on earth does anyone believe that OSL 1.0 forbids personal
modification?  Is this the way rumors start?  Does OSL 1.1 have that
problem?  (See www.rosenlaw.com/osl1.1.html)  /Larry Rosen

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Nordell [mailto:tamlin@algonet.se] 
> Sent: Sunday, November 03, 2002 4:44 PM
> To: license-discuss@opensource.org
> Subject: Re: Plan 9 license
> 
> 
> Lewis Collard wrote:
> 
> > > > The Plan 9 license forbids personal modification
> > >
> > > I agree, but so does the OSL 1.0, which is Open Source 
> (the OSL 1.1 
> > > does not have this problem).
> >
> > Then I disagree with the certification of the OSL v1.0 as 
> Open Source.
> 
> Count me in. If I can't modify the software for which I have 
> the source code, what point would it be in having it? 
> Verifying that it contains bugs I'm not allowed to fix?!
> 
> By giving someone access to the source code, you have also 
> given them the option of rebuilding the software themselves. 
> If soneone finds an error in named source, why on earth would 
> any sane person want to stop that someone from fixing the bug 
> for his/hers personal binary/binaries?
> 
> 
> /Mike
> 
> --
> license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
> 

--
license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3