[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[forsyth]

>>Also what's up with inferno? When are the vitanuova going to add contents to their site? Inferno
>>has never been so opaque.

i'm sorry about that.   it isn't dead, though.   i'll say more when i can.
i was planning to post some things today but i'll have to do it when i can:
i got stuck in a meeting this afternoon, and our managing director has got
chicken pox.

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[Pat]

> > The plan9 technology is amazing and if it doesn't become freely available it will be cloned and we will
> > start an open plan9 distribution, there might be patent issues but only in the USA... Software patents
> > are not enforced everywhere, they are abusive and void.
> You are of course at liberty to give your own work away free, but I
> can't see your justification for insisting that others do the same.
>
> There is nothing to stop you or anyone else starting a new Linux
> like effort to reimplement the Plan9 ideas. But I don't think you
> should advocate stealing someone else's code.

It's not theft, because nothing is taken. Your argument presumes the
validity of intellectual property, something which I think is invalid.

> In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
> (and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
> a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
> out there because of it.

Because NT isn't documented well enough to make it easily cloned :)

--
"Religion is a crutch, and only the crippled need crutches" -- Madalyn Murray
Any opinions expressed in this message do not necessarily reflect
the official position of Pat Gunn or his employer. Instead, they
reflect the official position of the reader(s).

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[Russ]

	Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
	if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
	able to keep working.
	...
	Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
	trying to stay in business.

I really have no idea, but somehow
I doubt that the sale of Plan 9 CDs is
what is keeping Lucent in business.

I'd also like to point out that while all this
talk of whether Plan 9 should be given
away for free or should cost $350 is
amusing, it is largely irrelevant.  I think
everyone agrees that it would be great
if the next Plan 9 distribution ends up
being under better terms and a lower
price tag than the last one.
But as Rob and Dave have said, at this point
what will happen is really not in the
hands of anyone who will see this message.
Let's sit back and see what happens.

Russ

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[Digby]

>
> The plan9 technology is amazing and if it doesn't become freely available it will be cloned and we will
> start an open plan9 distribution, there might be patent issues but only in the USA... Software patents
> are not enforced everywhere, they are abusive and void.
>
You are of course at liberty to give your own work away free, but I
can't see your justification for insisting that others do the same.

There is nothing to stop you or anyone else starting a new Linux
like effort to reimplement the Plan9 ideas. But I don't think you
should advocate stealing someone else's code.

In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
(and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
out there because of it.

Of course the price comparison is not quite fair, because Windows
source versions are not available, and software development tools
are all optional extras.

I could see an argument for makeing an Intel/Binary Plan9 CD available
at a much lower price, for students or others just wanting
to evaluate it or perhaps develop applications and bundle them with
a running binary system.  You don't need system source to develop
applications.

Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
able to keep working.

I would also be quite happy to see a freely distributed clone
developed, based only on the ideas and not the source code of the
current implementation. But I would not expect the resulting kernel
to be as elegantly written as the original, which is why I would
rather keep it in the hands of the original authors. If it did go
open source, I would prefer the BSD to the Linux model for that
reason.

An ugly application can be ignored, but an ugly kernel hack can
damage reliability and maintainability, and make subsequent
improvements more difficult.

So long as any potential clone maintained application binary
compatibility with the original, both could benefit from a vibrant
developer community.

Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..

Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[Digby]

>
> The plan9 technology is amazing and if it doesn't become freely available it will be cloned and we will
> start an open plan9 distribution, there might be patent issues but only in the USA... Software patents
> are not enforced everywhere, they are abusive and void.
>
You are of course at liberty to give your own work away free, but I
can't see your justification for insisting that others do the same.

There is nothing to stop you or anyone else starting a new Linux
like effort to reimplement the Plan9 ideas. But I don't think you
should advocate stealing someone else's code.

In your arguments, you seem to ignore the fact the the most popular
(and vastly inferiour) operating system on the market costs quite
a lot more than Plan9, and I don't see hordes of "NT/Windows" clones
out there because of it.

Of course the price comparison is not quite fair, because Windows
source versions are not available, and software development tools
are all optional extras.

I could see an argument for makeing an Intel/Binary Plan9 CD available
at a much lower price, for students or others just wanting
to evaluate it or perhaps develop applications and bundle them with
a running binary system.  You don't need system source to develop
applications.

Personally I am more than happy to pay US$350.00 for a source licence,
if that contributes to keeping the very talented people at Lucent
able to keep working.

I would also be quite happy to see a freely distributed clone
developed, based only on the ideas and not the source code of the
current implementation. But I would not expect the resulting kernel
to be as elegantly written as the original, which is why I would
rather keep it in the hands of the original authors. If it did go
open source, I would prefer the BSD to the Linux model for that
reason.

An ugly application can be ignored, but an ugly kernel hack can
damage reliability and maintainability, and make subsequent
improvements more difficult.

So long as any potential clone maintained application binary
compatibility with the original, both could benefit from a vibrant
developer community.

Lucent is a commercial company, so lets not bash them too much for
trying to stay in business. They may not be helping as much as
some of us think they could, but at least they are not actually
doing great harm like a certain Redmond based company..

Regards,
DigbyT
--
Digby R. S. Tarvin                                              digbyt@acm.org
http://www.cthulhu.dircon.co.uk

[9fans] Plan9 should be free distributable

[Anthony]

I have been interested in plan9 for a long time. Maybe if the plan9 iso had been released illegally
by the software piracy community, it might have gained a bigger userbase. I have been asking
everyone for a copy because I couldn't afford one at the time and noone complied to my request.
I remember trying to social engineer people at bell-labs to let me download a copy. Well all that
failed...

Plan9 is too expensive and hard to get... It is really funny because it is easier to get an illegal copy of
solaris, irix, aix or ios source trees nowadays, no joke...

There are some commercial products that cost a lot more like 3dsmax, maya, autocad 2000 ... but you
can ask anyone and he will be pleased to make you an illegal copy; it is a fact that 95% of students
don't buy software they can't afford. Personally I believe that a software worth using is worth
buying and I  paid my expensive copy of IDA (the best disassembler out there) .

The plan9 technology is amazing and if it doesn't become freely available it will be cloned and we will
start an open plan9 distribution, there might be patent issues but only in the USA... Software patents
are not enforced everywhere, they are abusive and void.

Also what's up with inferno? When are the vitanuova going to add contents to their site? Inferno
has never been so opaque.

Hoping I didn't offend you,

Truly,

Anthony