Lewis Collard scripsit: > 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). > and doesn't permit > commercial distribution (the Artistic license allows one to distribute > it for profit by claiming the charges are for "support", and allows > one to aggregate it with other products and then sell it - the latter > is in compliance with section 1 of the OSD). How is this different from the following language from 2.1 of the P9L? # 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, and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for # the cost of any media. You may also, at Your option, charge for any other # software, product or service that includes or incorporates the Original # Software as a part thereof. For comparison, clause 5 of the Artistic License says: # 5. You may charge a reasonable copying fee for any distribution of # this Package. You may charge any fee you choose for support of this # Package. You may not charge a fee for this Package itself. However, you # may distribute this Package in aggregate with other (possibly commercial) # programs as part of a larger (possibly commercial) software distribution # provided that you do not advertise this Package as a product of your own. Looks like the same deal to me. -- John Cowan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> http://www.ccil.org/~cowan http://www.reutershealth.com Unified Gaelic in Cyrillic script! http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Celticonlang -- license-discuss archive is at http://crynwr.com/cgi-bin/ezmlm-cgi?3
