[9fans] Plan 9 future

[G. David Butler gdb@dbSystems.com]

After waiting for this thread to idle (and watching with amusement
the discussions of Plan 9 functionality in Linux) I would like to
continue the discussion of commercial use and other things.

=======================================================================

Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:

>Where do I buy a license?

That is the question I hope we have an answer to before too long.

>I'll be working on an anonymous remailer and the replacement of DES as the
>default encryption mechanism.

Yes it would seem that an MD5 hash would be more exportable and secure.

=======================================================================

Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za> wrote:

>As for code-sharing, it is restricted to the elite that acquired
>the licence in the first place (does Tom Duff have a licenced copy,
>or an exemption? :-) :-)

I think I might have an answer to that... read on.

>                                           (c) it must be possible,
>nay, easy, to contribute to the code base, as many in this forum
>have demonstrated, nothing like public recognition to encourage
>more contributions.  Am I repeating the lesson in Eric Raymond's
>"The cathedral and the Bazaar?"

Yes, that is the lesson.  The process and motivation for creating
software is changing.  How can we leverage this change to promote
Plan 9?

>Personally, I'd like to see a BSD-style licence, even with Lucent
>getting a cut.  Or GDB, for that matter.  I guess we should discuss
>that option too.

Since Lucent has licensed Plan 9 to several entities, I doubt we
will see a BSD style license.  Lucent will, and should, get a cut
since we (at least I) appreciate them funding the work of Bell Labs.
The question is just how and how much.  Should I?  I would like to,
but I bet I'd only get it by investing in Lucent stock.

>> >On the other hand, setting up a CVS repository and assigning one
>> >staff member to moderate source updates would, in my opinion, be
>> >considerably simpler and hopefully within a moderate budget.  In
>> >return, Bell Labs would get both feedback and improvements well in
>> >excess of their investment.

I like this idea.  Perhaps they would, too.

>                    probably because the Plan 9 philosophy has
>gotten to me, right under my skin.  Don't underestimate the religious
>value _that_ may have.

I'm betting on it.

>           I agree wholeheartedly with you that commercial use is
>a necessity, I just hope it does not cloud the issue to the point
>where _only_ commercial use is viable.

I agree!  The commercial use issue is only important to me because
I need to know I can use the tools I have invested in and am
comfortable with to solve problems in any setting.

>Well, you made at least one friend or convert - does that make me
>a sado-masochist?

Thanks, and I surely hope not as I'm working to convert many more!

>I guess I may as well ask here:  Do you need a very enthusiastic
>software engineer with lots of experience (read "old") and some
>rather old-fashioned views?

Just the way I like them!  Be careful what you wish for...

=======================================================================

Richard Uhtenwoldt <ru@ohio.river.org> wrote:

>summary: the lifting of the no-commercial-use provision would prove
>a major win, but what you end up with is still not as good as
>an open-source license,  from my point of view.

I don't know, I may have a better idea, but I'll let you decide.

>"we do it all the time" is not a guarantee that Plan 9's owner will not
>interfere with your doing it in the future.  worse: Plan 9's owner can
>probably prevent you from continuing to distribute improvements we have
>already made.

Yes, that is true.  But it would not be possible for anyone that has
a redistribution license.

>licensees of Unix in the 70s and early 80s exchanged works derived from
>Unix "all the time", the most famous such distribution being BSD.  after
>Unix had become commercially important and the regulations that prevented
>them from entering the computing market were lifted, ATT changed their
>attitude toward this practice, with the result that BSD entered legal
>limbo for years, during which time it was unclear whether BSD was legal
>to use or whether BSD had a future.  today Linux has 10 times the number
>of users as BSD, and commentators other than I have cited the period of
>legal limbo as a reason.

My understanding is that Berkeley had a license much like the shrinkwrap
one we have now.  It allows the sharing of code with other licensees.
The BSD problem could have been easily solved by someone purchasing a
redistribution license and going into that business.  When BSDI went
into business commercially selling BSD, they tried to do it without
giving AT&T its due and got sued.  Big surprise!  The resolution of
the lawsuit took proving that the code had no AT&T content.  This is
the same problem the free BSD's had.  They had to start over with
BSD-Lite.

>can anyone read the current shrinkwrap license for Plan 9 and assure me
>that if I were to invest my time modifying Plan 9 that I would
>always be able to make those changes (in the form of modified source
>code or diff or boodle) available on the Web or via FTP?  I do not think
>so because even diffs and boodles are considered by our courts to be
>derived works.

You are correct.  This is a problem I've been lamenting about for years.
The developers at Bell Labs have always said that it was OK to do exactly
that, but as I understand the license, you should verify that the recpient
has a valid license before you distribute any code unless is has NO
licensed content.

>
>the reply that if my changes are any good then Plan 9's owner will
>incorporate them into future versions of Plan 9 will not assuage me, for
>it lets the owner capture too much of my work: I do not despise the
>profit motive and I do not flinch from paying Plan 9's $350 price, but I
>do not think it is good for my society for me to choose to devote my
>creativity and mental energy in ways that can be "captured" by
>profit-motivated businessmen and lawyers (or power-motivated
>politicians, btw).

So just how much did you or most other Linux contributors make on the
Red Hat IPO?

=======================================================================

So, I would like to propose the idea of _The Plan 9 Club_.

A member of the Club would have the following benefits:

Access to the source (even the shrinkwrap license allows this).
(Remember, only Lucent has source distribution rights.)

Access to repositories of bug fixes and enhancements coordinated
by the Club.  (It is important to have these separate as the Club
would have an obligation to return bug fixes to Lucent, but not
enhancements.)

Access to documentation, training and support.

Access to commercial use sublicenses.


To become a member you would have to agree to the terms of the
associated licenses and pay (hopefully trivial) dues either yearly
or monthly.  Dues would fund the repostories and the support
elements of the Club.  Sublicenses would involve additional fees.


Now, here are some questions for us all:

How should the Club be governed?

Would members be compensated for their code contributions?  How?

Should the club allow resellers?  What would happen to a commercial
sublicense if the owner of the sublicense is not a member?

Should there be different classes of membership?

How would members share in the ownership of the Club?!!!


Long Live Plan 9!

David Butler
gdb@dbSystems.com