The LPL is dead. It died when all the Plan 9 IP was transferred to the
foundation.

Nokia is out of the picture.

So let's realign this discussion a bit. The Plan 9 source formerly
owned by Nokia is owned by the foundation. That source is released
under the MIT license.

As for the inclusion of source not owned by the foundation, if that
source has a license (e.g. MIT) which allows other projects, including
the foundation's Plan 9 project,  to include it in a distribution or
repo, then that is ok. As per common practice, and up to the
discretion of the author, the files typically include a license header
and copyright notice.

I'm not understanding the issue here. This is all pretty settled
stuff: source code under one copyright and an MIT license which
includes other source code covered by a different copyright and an MIT
license.

ron

On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:10 AM Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans
<9fans@9fans.net> wrote:

As I interpret it, we'd need Nokia to re-release Plan 9 under a Lucent

Public License version 1.03 which would be the MIT license for

contributions to be relicensed (if I'm interpreting it correctly the

GPL release of Plan 9 couldn't apply to contributions either.)

I Am Not A Lawyer, and I don't doubt that the P9 foundation can

get good lawyers.  But, once _ownership_ of the copyright was transferred

to the P9F, they can do what they want with it, including publishing

under the MIT license.  There should not be a need to involve Nokia

any further.

The problem is Nokia doesn't own the contributions, so they can't transfer

them to the P9F, but the LPL says they have the right to update the LPL,

or was this right transferred to the P9F too?

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf20bce89ef96d4b6-M1271fb6cec1bac34d939ace4
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription