Why Plan-9 licensing?

Karsten M. Self kmself at ix.netcom.com
Sun Oct 21 23:44:02 PDT 2001


on Sun, Oct 21, 2001 at 08:30:19PM -0500, Jim Choate (ravage at einstein.ssz.com) wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2001, Karsten M. Self wrote:
> 
> > Summer, June/July, IIRC.  I've done a couple of look-ups since.  There's
> > been little additional news or information (I'm not saying none, I'm
> > saying little).  OpenBSD, a relatively little-known free 'nix, gets
> > rather more press and community coverage.
> 
> You need to be on the mailing list. There is almost constant changes.
> You can also visit the wiki link at Bell Labs for the most current
> info.

I'll stop by.

> > proposed licenses and terms.  I'm rather convinced that novelty, all
> > else being equal, is bad.
> 
> Can't disagree more.

Care to expand (off list if you wish).  It's an area of interest.

Nutshell argument:  license interactions are factorial.  Interaction
complexity reduces overall value of a codebase, and tends to marginalize
minority licenses.

By various methods (Debian package listings, Sourceforge projects), the
GPL or LPGL are applied to some 84% of free software.  A tally from
January of this year:

Of the roughly 8,800 listed projects with a license on SourceForge:
                                                                 
    8,384 are based on an OSI approved license.                  
      208 are based on an other or proprietary license.                 
      235 are public domain.                          

Of the OSI licenses, the breakdown is as follows (note that results may
vary daily as projects are added and removed):

    GNU GPL:    6,178	74%
    GNP LGPL:     844   10%
    BSD:          480    6%
    Artistic:     302    4%
    MozPL:        114    1%
    MIT:          110    1%
    Python:        78    1%
    QPL:           60    1%
    zlib/libpng:   46    1%
    IBM-PL:        10    1%
    MITRE (CVW):    4    0%

As mentioned, 84% of projects are licensed under the GPL.  Compatibly
licensed projects include software under the BSD (revised) terms, MIT,
Artistic, and Python (most recent) licenses.  Major QPL projects are
licensed compatibly with the GPL.  Major MozPL projects are licensed
compatibly with the GPL.  Given some room for variance (there are
non-compatible BSD, and MozPL projects), some 90-95% of projects are
likely licensed under terms compatible with the GNU GPL.
Noncompatibility puts you in a rather small mindshare camp, with a
serious sacrifice of network effects (Metcalfe's Law).

This does assume that a project's intent is to become relatively widely
used and supported by broad mindshare.  As these are among the principle
technical advantages offered by free software / open source, it's not an
advantage to discard lightly.

Per the FSF's analysis, Plan 9 is, again, not open source, free
software, or GPL compatible.  This is a significant strategic handicap.
Moreover, the bulk of terms in the Plan 9 license serve the corporate
interests of the software's owner -- there's little quid pro quo for the
developer or community.  This is typical of corporate licenses,
particularly first drafts.  The evolution of IBM's own Jikes licensing
is instructive.

If the code exists for its own purposes, it may not matter.  From a
broader community perspective, you could do better.

Peace.

-- 
Karsten M. Self <kmself at ix.netcom.com>       http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
 What part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?             Home of the brave
  http://gestalt-system.sourceforge.net/                   Land of the free
   Free Dmitry! Boycott Adobe! Repeal the DMCA! http://www.freesklyarov.org
Geek for Hire                     http://kmself.home.netcom.com/resume.html
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cpunks.org/pipermail/cypherpunks-legacy/attachments/20011021/ae36f122/attachment.sig>


More information about the cypherpunks-legacy mailing list