[9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[Einar Karttunen]

Hello

Does the Plan9 licence ("Lucent Public Licence 1.02") imply any
licensing constraints for code linking against code protected by it?
That is, can I link against the plan9 code if my code is under a
different (BSD) licence? The licence speaks of "the original program"
but that sounds quite ambiguous in the case of libraries...

- Einar Karttunen

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1551 bytes --]

I'ld need to know your situation a little better.  What do
you mean by 'touches Plan 9 code' or 'touches GPL code'?

If you are writing code that just links against our code and are just
releasing the source (or unlinked object files), our license doesn't
apply to you at all, i.e., you can do whatever you want with the code.
If you release it under BSD and want it to be part of our Plan 9
distribution, I'll have to keep it apart (in its own directory) and
include the BSD license in that directory.  That's because, the
BSD requires the list of conditions and disclaimers to stay with
the source code.  That would be fine with us.  We release stuff
under GPL, LPL, and a few other licenses on our CD.  It just
has to be kept separate.

If you are the only author of the code, you can also release it under
as many licenses as you want.

If you desire it to be part of our distribution and not kept
separate (i.e. so that other Plan 9ers can mix it into their
LPL licensed code) you can release it under the BSD (and/or GPL) license
to everyone else and contribute it to Plan 9 under the Plan 9 license.

I understand the fear of the legal language in our license.  I
would have used BSD if my lawyers had allowed it.

The bad part about multiple licenses is figuring out what to do
with updates.  If communities using very different licenses
contribute code back to you under their own licenses, then you
start having to keep very distinct records of your own since they
may have mixed in GPL's or LPL'd or BSD'd code.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3854 bytes --]

From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification
Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:10:10 +0200
Message-ID: <20040225071010.GA3961@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>

On 23.02 10:52, David Presotto wrote:
> The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T
> HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a
> contribution.  So if you want to base something on
> Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries)
> but don't want to give away your work, you can
> do so.  However, if you want to make money off of
> it, you have to take financial responsibility for
> your actions.

I am writing code which directly touches GPL source in one project and
Plan9 source in another. I am not mixing Plan9 and GPL licenced files in
any way, but need a way to write my own code that I can use with both.

I was thinking of BSD licencing the code, so that the licence would not
complicate things needlessly. (It is quite difficult to relicence if I
receive patches from other people).

Is there any problem with this approach and the Plan9 licence? I am
thinking of just distributing a patchset containing my own code. As the
licence is quite complex I don't want to be a contributor or distributor
as the legalize is too complex for me to understand.

The final results would two separate things one under the Plan9 licence
and one under the GPL. But my own code being BSD (which should be
compatible with both) should give more freedom for future.

Or is there a better way?

- Einar Karttunen

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[Einar Karttunen]

On 23.02 10:52, David Presotto wrote:
> The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T
> HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a
> contribution.  So if you want to base something on
> Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries)
> but don't want to give away your work, you can
> do so.  However, if you want to make money off of
> it, you have to take financial responsibility for
> your actions.

I am writing code which directly touches GPL source in one project and
Plan9 source in another. I am not mixing Plan9 and GPL licenced files in
any way, but need a way to write my own code that I can use with both.

I was thinking of BSD licencing the code, so that the licence would not
complicate things needlessly. (It is quite difficult to relicence if I
receive patches from other people).

Is there any problem with this approach and the Plan9 licence? I am
thinking of just distributing a patchset containing my own code. As the
licence is quite complex I don't want to be a contributor or distributor
as the legalize is too complex for me to understand.

The final results would two separate things one under the Plan9 licence
and one under the GPL. But my own code being BSD (which should be
compatible with both) should give more freedom for future.

Or is there a better way?

- Einar Karttunen

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[Jim Choate]

Hi David,

Thanks. I'll have to ponder this for a while. I'm sure it will raise more
questions.

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote:

> I've got to be more precise here, obviously.
>
> The license talks about two types of people
> (that can be the same of course); contributors
> and distributors.  If you want what you wrote
> to be a contribution, you must affirmatively
> say it somewhere (like email to the Labs
> or 9fans containing the contribution or announcing
> it to the web).  You are then a contributor and
> your contribution and you are protected by the
> license should anyone distribute it.
>
> A contributor also is required to provide source
> and required to provide a 'royalty free
> patent license...' to anyone that accepts the
> license.
>
> If you want to distribute something containing
> plan9 source or plan9 binaries you are a distributor
> (D).  A distributor can distribute under a different
> license and doesn't have to disclose any source
> that it not a 'contribution'.  However, D's
> license must be compatible with ours, i.e.,
> must have similar cover your ass clauses
> (see the license for specifics, but I believe
> most OSI licenses would be satisfactory).
>
> Also, if the distribution is commercial (for
> recompense of some sort) the distributor must
> indemnify all contributors against suits brought
> as a result of actions taken by the distributor
> (false claims, bad software, malicious behavior, ...).
>
> If you link your code with our libraries and distribute, we
> have taken that not to be a distribution since the
> only people that can run it are somehow in the chain
> of licensee or distributor so that they would already
> have the libraries.  If you don't want to trust us
> always being that nice, you can distribute your own
> object files without the libraries since the end
> user can link anyways.
>
> The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T
> HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a
> contribution.  So if you want to base something on
> Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries)
> but don't want to give away your work, you can
> do so.  However, if you want to make money off of
> it, you have to take financial responsibility for
> your actions.


 -- --

  Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
  512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)                            help@open-forge.com

  Hangar 18          Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
  512-451-7087                               http://open-forge.org/hangar18

  James Choate    512-451-7087     ravage@ssz.com    jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2058 bytes --]

I've got to be more precise here, obviously.

The license talks about two types of people
(that can be the same of course); contributors
and distributors.  If you want what you wrote
to be a contribution, you must affirmatively
say it somewhere (like email to the Labs
or 9fans containing the contribution or announcing
it to the web).  You are then a contributor and
your contribution and you are protected by the
license should anyone distribute it.

A contributor also is required to provide source
and required to provide a 'royalty free
patent license...' to anyone that accepts the
license.

If you want to distribute something containing
plan9 source or plan9 binaries you are a distributor
(D).  A distributor can distribute under a different
license and doesn't have to disclose any source
that it not a 'contribution'.  However, D's
license must be compatible with ours, i.e.,
must have similar cover your ass clauses
(see the license for specifics, but I believe
most OSI licenses would be satisfactory).

Also, if the distribution is commercial (for
recompense of some sort) the distributor must
indemnify all contributors against suits brought
as a result of actions taken by the distributor
(false claims, bad software, malicious behavior, ...).

If you link your code with our libraries and distribute, we
have taken that not to be a distribution since the
only people that can run it are somehow in the chain
of licensee or distributor so that they would already
have the libraries.  If you don't want to trust us
always being that nice, you can distribute your own
object files without the libraries since the end
user can link anyways.

The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T
HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a
contribution.  So if you want to base something on
Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries)
but don't want to give away your work, you can
do so.  However, if you want to make money off of
it, you have to take financial responsibility for
your actions.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3134 bytes --]

From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com>
To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Cc: <hangar18-general@open-forge.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:24:47 -0600 (CST)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0402230921400.28584-100000@einstein.ssz.com>


On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote:

> The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered
> contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without
> that being considered part of 'the original program'.
>
> However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other
> part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints.

And there is no requirement to provide source if you include the binaries.

So, I can build a project and link it into P9 and as long as no P9 source
goes with it I'm ok? The license (Open or Closed) with regard to the
project is not relevant. Only whether I provide P9 source.

If I do include any source from P9 then I must provide souce to the
product/program/extension.

Correct?

 -- --

  Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
  512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)                            help@open-forge.com

  Hangar 18          Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
  512-451-7087                               http://open-forge.org/hangar18

  James Choate    512-451-7087     ravage@ssz.com    jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[Jim Choate]

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote:

> The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered
> contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without
> that being considered part of 'the original program'.
>
> However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other
> part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints.

And there is no requirement to provide source if you include the binaries.

So, I can build a project and link it into P9 and as long as no P9 source
goes with it I'm ok? The license (Open or Closed) with regard to the
project is not relevant. Only whether I provide P9 source.

If I do include any source from P9 then I must provide souce to the
product/program/extension.

Correct?

 -- --

  Open Forge, LLC  24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles
  512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.)                            help@open-forge.com

  Hangar 18          Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux
  512-451-7087                               http://open-forge.org/hangar18

  James Choate    512-451-7087     ravage@ssz.com    jchoate@open-forge.com

Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification

[David Presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --]

The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered
contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without
that being considered part of 'the original program'.

However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other
part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2682 bytes --]

From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi>
To: Plan9 ML <9fans@cse.psu.edu>
Subject: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification
Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:12:06 +0200
Message-ID: <20040222091206.GA20532@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI>

Hello

Does the Plan9 licence ("Lucent Public Licence 1.02") imply any
licensing constraints for code linking against code protected by it?
That is, can I link against the plan9 code if my code is under a
different (BSD) licence? The licence speaks of "the original program"
but that sounds quite ambiguous in the case of libraries...

- Einar Karttunen