From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Einar Karttunen To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification Message-ID: <20040225071010.GA3961@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:10:10 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: f4e20a80-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 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