From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license Message-ID: <20030621112916.E2250@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <11085765386d7572968a06a2ee05f689@plan9.bell-labs.com> <20030621091652.GB24882@folly> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: <20030621091652.GB24882@folly>; from Markus Friedl on Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:16:52AM +0200 Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 11:29:16 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: d509a53e-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:16:52AM +0200, Markus Friedl wrote: > > On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:46:21PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote: > > Why can't Lucent just release Plan 9 under a GPL? > > because the GPL would not help when trying to replace gcc.... But 2c doesn't do C++, either. So GCC would need to be in the OpenBSD distribution anyway. As for using 8c, there doesn't seem to be anything in the licence prohibiting use for developing an alternative OS, so is it not possible to develop with the Plan 9 toolkit but release GCC compliant code? Or is the cross-development elegance of ?c you're after, which would allow OpenBSD to catch and maybe even overtake NetBSD? ++L