[9fans] polemics

[9fans] polemics

[jhs]

Would the interested parties be so kind as to move these religious-politico-
historical discussions of Open Source and greedy AT&T-Lucent-Bell_Labs-
Berkeley-Microsoft-DOS-Windows elsewhere? There are plenty of fora for
this sort of noise, enough so that there's no reason to turn 9fans into
another one. Alternatively perhaps the list owner might create another
list (suggested name: plan9-squabbles) specifically for such discussions.

Might I further suggest that those who wish to weigh in on licensing
terms for past present and future plan9 releases send their suggestions
in private e-mail to Rob Pike, who will doubtless handle them in his
usual efficient manner.
					Thanks.

PS As regards supporting or not supporting plan9 developers, and whether
you think they're great or no better than the random teen hacker, they
don't give a damn what you think, nor does Lucent, so you're just wasting
everyone's cycles with this noise.

[9fans] polemics

[G.David]

>From: <jhs@labrea.research.att.com>

>Might I further suggest that those who wish to weigh in on licensing
>terms for past present and future plan9 releases send their suggestions
>in private e-mail to Rob Pike, who will doubtless handle them in his
>usual efficient manner.
>Thanks.

Given that Charles Forsyth and I both have some authority to speak
in our areas (Inferno and Plan 9, respectively) regarding sub-licensing,
I think the only discussions that should be forwarded to Rob Pike
are those regarding the source terms of the hopefully upcoming release.
And unless I'm very mistaken, even commercial use of the new system
can be discussed by me with some authority.

So unless any other Plan 9 or Inferno re-distribution licensees want
to speak up, I would prefer the license discussions to stay on the list.

David Butler
gdb@dbSystems.com