From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG  Fri Jun 20 10:19:27 2003
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG>
Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BAE5237B401
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from bitblocks.com (bitblocks.com [209.204.185.216])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3C50343F93
	for <chat@freebsd.org>; Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:19:27 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Received: from bitblocks.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by bitblocks.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id h5KHJOPF085654;
	Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:19:24 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from bakul@bitblocks.com)
Message-Id: <200306201719.h5KHJOPF085654@bitblocks.com>
To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 20 Jun 2003 00:48:18 PDT."
             <3EF2BC42.D6F9D3AC@mindspring.com> 
Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 10:19:24 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
cc: chat@freebsd.org
cc: Michael Carr <sphaleotas@blueyonder.co.uk>
Subject: Re: FYI: Plan9 open sourced 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1
Precedence: list
List-Id: Non technical items related to the community
	<freebsd-chat.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-chat>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-chat@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat>,
	<mailto:freebsd-chat-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 20 Jun 2003 17:19:28 -0000

Terry lambert writes:

> If they could clarify the specific issues noted above to mean
> what they appear to intend them to mean, then this is a rather
> decent license.

Terry, can you please ask your questions on comp.os.plan9 or
the 9fans mailing list?  The bell labs folks including their
lawyers have been remarkably responsive and it does appear
they really *want* plan9 to be free. 

In terms of indemnification it appears to me they are
spelling out in excruciating detail what should be apparent
to anyone using any free source.  I personally feel more
words mean more pain for all (and feel lawyers should be
given a "budget" of words to fashion a contract out of) but
the intent seems clear to me (but I am not a lawyer etc.).

Michael Carr writes:

> Theo disagrees:
> https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2003-June/025148.html

1) Rather than take someone else's word for it, you may
   consider reading and understanding the license yourself.

2) Last I looked, he has not responded to the upgraded
   license nor rebutted any of the counter arguments.

Me, I am an atheoist.