We should convince both the Free Software Foundation and the Open Source Initiative that "Lucent Public License Version 1.02" is not a free software license. Mainly based in Theo's arguments*.
This paragraph says it all: And come on it says "certain responsibilities". Good god. Are you people dumb to accept such a term in a legal document? It is like "your house mortgage can be considered invalid in certain situations and then we own your house". A BSD future for that compiler is not guaranteed, but I think a free software future is. I don't think Lucent would step back. Maybe they will use a copyleft license, but I think that would be much better than now. * [9fans] The new ridiculous license http://9fans.net/archive/2003/06/270
