[9fans] misinformation in the discussion about the GPL release of Plan 9

[9fans] misinformation in the discussion about the GPL release of Plan 9

[ron minnich]

Just thought I'd toss out a correction, because lots of statements are
being made by people who don't know much about the whys and wherefores
of the recent UCB announcement of a GPL'ed release or how we got here.

The license, and the manner in which the distro is being managed, were
specified by Alcatel-Lucent. UCB graciously agreed to take on the role
they have taken on. This was not a small effort on either side.

Folks at Bell Labs (and me) put in a lot of time over the last 2
quarters to try to find a way to fix a problem, namely, that the LPL
has been off-putting for many potential users, only in part because it
is incompatible with the GPL. We sought a more standard license. It
was not easy.

The LPL could not be made compatible with the GPL in finite time. Yes,
the web pages all mention one clause; I found out the hard way that
was only *one* issue. There are many more.

I would certainly hope that people can use this distro as a basis for
further work.

I think Alcatel-Lucent, UC Berkeley, and Jim McKie are owed much
thanks for their willingness to revisit this issue, and their
persistence in achieving the outcome.

ron

Re: [9fans] misinformation in the discussion about the GPL release of Plan 9

[Kurt H Maier]

Quoting ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>:

> Just thought I'd toss out a correction, because lots of statements are
> being made by people who don't know much about the whys and wherefores
> of the recent UCB announcement of a GPL'ed release or how we got here.

I'm not sure what you set out to clarify here.

Will the Labs continue to release code under the LPL or not?  I don't
particularly care about the GPL.

khm