|
Richard Stallman, who leads the Free Software Foundation, has also weighed in with his own "list of problems" in the Plan 9 license, which he posted on the gnu.org website. Much of the discussions about Plan 9 have only cast more heat rather than light.
Beyond the flaming that serves to obscure the real issues, including a long digression about whether copyright infringement is piracy and a big argument about the meaning of the word "reasonable"-and beyond Lucent's proposed changes to its license-there are specific issues that thus far have prevented approval by the OSI and FSF of the Plan 9 license.
The first key issue relates to a requirement by Lucent that
"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."
At the urging of FSF and OSI commentators, Lucent agreed to change the last phrase of that provision to read "if distributed in any form, e.g., binary or source." This makes it clear that private use of software for any purpose, and the making of modifications for private use, should not impose obligations on the licensee to disclose those uses or modifications to anyone.
But there's an even far more serious problem that occurs in the following provision:
"The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate automatically if ... (ii) You initiate or participate in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor and/or another contributor."
This clause, for both the Free Software and Open Source communities, is extremely hazardous. By this provision, Lucent is trying to discourage anyone from suing Lucent if Lucent itself violates any intellectual property right. For example, your license to Plan 9 would terminate automatically if you were to sue Lucent to enforce the GPL license for an entirely different software package. While OSI and FSF have previously accepted licenses that provide for such retaliatory license termination in the event that the licensee sues the licensor for patent infringement, neither group feels comfortable with the much broader "any intellectual property" retaliation provision. Thus far, Lucent has not removed that provision.
Reviewers found at least two examples of asymmetrical provisions in the Plan 9 license. First, Lucent provides the software without any warranty and disclaims liability for any damages, yet it requires commercial licensees to indemnify Lucent "against any liability, losses, damages and costs...." Second, Lucent gives licensees only limited rights to their code, yet licensees must provide unlimited rights to their modifications to Lucent. To OSI and FSF reviewers, these asymmetries seemed unfair.
Another issue relates to compliance. The Plan 9 license requires licensees to comply with US export control regulations. This is unacceptable for licensees in other countries. OSI allows licenses to require compliance with "the law," but doesn't approve licenses that require compliance with "US law."
These are the major issues preventing the OSI and FSF from approving the Plan 9 license.
Lawrence Rosen, Open Source Initiative executive director and general counsel, is also an attorney in private practice in Redwood City, CA (www.rosenlaw.com). The Open Source Initiative (www.opensource.org) manages and promotes the Open Source Definition. OSI collects copies of licenses approved by the OSI. Those distributing under one of the licenses get to say their software is "OSI Certified Open Source software." In addition to the classic Open Source licenses, numerous others are submitted for review and approval. OSI's site says the list of approved licenses is growing.
| 
