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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > 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