[9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

One reason that ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on is that Rob Pike
et. al. filed for patents on some of the ideas in Plan 9.  When he
came to MIT's AI Lab, and gave a nice presentation on Plan 9, I asked
him which of the ideas he had talked about we were allowed to use in
our own software projects.  He said "as far as I'm concerned, all of
them".  I asked if there were any patents that might matter as far as
AT&T was concerned, and he said there were some, but that he didn't
even understand the patent applications.

I know that his talk made an impression: the innovation of the ideas,
the impressiveness of the system built on them, and that not only
didn't we know if we would be sued for using similar ideas in our own
systems, but Rob wasn't going to tell us if that was possible or not.

And then, years later, after Plan 9 failed to capture a big audience,
it gets released for more public consumption, but for some
incomprehensible reason, is still not free software.

There are some pretty big reasons that Plan 9's very good ideas are
sitting in an eddy of the stream of OS design: because the political
shenanigans of those who hold the keys have done their best to keep
those ideas out of the mainstream.

Thomas

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Jim Choate]

[SSZ: Replies including hangar18 will bounce. I'll forward any relevant
      replies. Sorry, but we insist on a members only submission policy.]

On Thu, 8 Nov 2001, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:

> There are some pretty big reasons that Plan 9's very good ideas are
> sitting in an eddy of the stream of OS design: because the political
> shenanigans of those who hold the keys have done their best to keep
> those ideas out of the mainstream.

While I don't necessarily like some of the 'head-in-the-sand ivory-tower
how-dare-you-question-me' attitude of some aspects of the Plan 9
developers and their hanger-ons views (but I can live with it w/o any
major issues - ignore -em - don't need 'em) I fail to see your problem
with the current Plan 9 license. Yes, the original license (ie $300/use,
no commercial usage) was problematic, and yes the original 'Open Source'
license release was worthless as written, they DID re-write it several
times into its current state. What are your specific views on the current
license shortfalls?

You're about the third or fourth person who has made some complaint on the
Plan 9 license in the last couple of months that I've run across. Yet, I
read it and don't see anything that I'd consider limiting. And they've not
been able to point to a specific sentence, or set, as problematic. I don't
need their permission to create my own Plan 9 branch, and I don't need
their permission to distribute it.

Where's you're beef? Where in the license do you feel it limits your
choices?

ps. check out the 'unununium' OS, no kernel, all run-time swappable
    modules...there are also several newer GUI's out there in the
    Open Source landscape that might bring a better interface to
    Plan 9.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

ravage@einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) writes:

> While I don't necessarily like some of the 'head-in-the-sand ivory-tower
> how-dare-you-question-me' attitude of some aspects of the Plan 9
> developers and their hanger-ons views (but I can live with it w/o any
> major issues - ignore -em - don't need 'em) I fail to see your problem
> with the current Plan 9 license. Yes, the original license (ie $300/use,
> no commercial usage) was problematic, and yes the original 'Open Source'
> license release was worthless as written, they DID re-write it several
> times into its current state. What are your specific views on the current
> license shortfalls?

A full description of the problems is at
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html.  Here is a precis:

  You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
  copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
  related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
  You if used for any purpose.

This prohibits people from making private modifications.

  and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of
  any media.

This seems to limit the price that people may charge for an initial
distribution, and might prohibit selling copies for a profit.

  Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this
  grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth
  in this Agreement,

When you download the software, Lucent demands that you explicitly
consent to the license.  If that's one of the "terms and conditions",
then it's a problem, because it would mean that before I can send a
copy of the software to my friend Joe, I have to get Joe's explicit
accession to the license.

  1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall
     terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the
     terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate
     in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor
     and/or another Contributor.

This is a huge disaster.  It means that if I want to use Plan 9, I
have to promise never to sue Lucent for any IP violation.  By my using
Plan 9, I therefore would be granting to Lucent the right to use my
own copyright works in complete contravention of the license I have
assigned to them.  That would mean that Lucent could ignore the GPL on
anything I'd authored!  Hardly acceptible.

   You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software or
   any modifications to it, You are responsible for compliance with
   the United States Export Administration Regulations and hereby
   indemnify the Original Contributor and all other Contributors for
   any liability incurred as a result.

This clause is also a problem.  Laws are automatically in force:
whether mentioned by a license or not--for the people those laws
affect.  But by incorporating the law into the license, you extend the
reach of the law to people that would otherwise not be affected.
Since the laws in question work to limit the right of people to freely
copy the software, they infringe freedom.  You aren't responsible for
what the US government enacts, but by incorporating this into the
license, you force people who would not otherwise have to comply with
the USEAR to start complying with them.

 2.2 No right is granted to Licensee to create derivative works of or
   to redistribute (other than with the Original Software or a
   derivative thereof) the screen imprinter fonts identified in
   subdirectory /lib/font/bit/lucida and printer fonts (Lucida Sans
   Unicode, Lucida Sans Italic, Lucida Sans Demibold, Lucida
   Typewriter, Lucida Sans Typewriter83), identified in subdirectory
   /sys/lib/postscript/font.

These fonts include some Ghostscript fonts which are free, but the
rest doesn't even come close.

Thomas

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[T. Kurt Bond]

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net> writes:
> ravage@einstein.ssz.com (Jim Choate) writes:
> > While I don't necessarily like some of the 'head-in-the-sand ivory-tower
> > how-dare-you-question-me' attitude of some aspects of the Plan 9
> > developers and their hanger-ons views (but I can live with it w/o any
> > major issues - ignore -em - don't need 'em) I fail to see your problem
> > with the current Plan 9 license. Yes, the original license (ie $300/use,
> > no commercial usage) was problematic, and yes the original 'Open Source'
> > license release was worthless as written, they DID re-write it several
> > times into its current state. What are your specific views on the current
> > license shortfalls?
>
> A full description of the problems is at
> http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/plan-nine.html.  Here is a precis:
>
>   You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
>   copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
>   related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
>   You if used for any purpose.

I'd just like to emphasize that this part of the Plan 9 license seems
to have changed since Richard Stallman first wrote the article.  Now
the Plan 9 license says:

    4.0 MODIFICATIONS

    You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
    copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
    related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
    You if distributed in any form, e.g., binary or source.

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html

Note that now it says the Original Contributor may request the
modifications only if you have distributed the modifications in some
form.

The other four "flaws" listed in Stallman's paper seem to remain.
--
T. Kurt Bond, tkb@tkb.mpl.com

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, T. Kurt Bond wrote:

> >   You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
> >   copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
> >   related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
> >   You if used for any purpose.

Which is effectively different from Open Source results, how again?

Open Source says if you take my code and use it, your code is Open Source
and if you distribute it you have to leave my headers and such in.

The Plan 9 license says if you distribute Plan 9 code and the Plan 9
license holder finds something interesting, then the developer agrees to
provide binary, source, and documentation.

Exactly what is the bitch? Either way the authors code is protected AND
any modifications are protected from close source development. The
implication being that if you were to develop close source the license
holder reserves the right to see what you're doing with their work and
that they get a copy of it. This means they could then release it
publicly if they found it interesting (or even as a matter of course),
thus protecting their investment and yours. It does of course allow them
to develop close source, but since they are the license holder that is a
GOOD thing.

After all, it is the goal not the path we each take that is important in
this context. Free, public code libraries.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"T. Kurt Bond" <tkb@tkb.mpl.com> writes:

> I'd just like to emphasize that this part of the Plan 9 license seems
> to have changed since Richard Stallman first wrote the article.  Now
> the Plan 9 license says:

This is better, but unfortunately still not quite good enough, I
think.  The problem again is that people might want to distribute
privately, and not have a positive obligation to send copies to
Lucent.  (Whether the recipients of those copies choose to send
something out is their business.)

There seems to be a great fear that private modifications will somehow
take off, and Lucent would get left out of the loop, and not get to
benefit from all the nifty work that would be done.  That's a
reasonable fear; it's exactly the reason the GPL exists.  A copyleft
has the practical effect of allowing you to get changes back almost
always, without actually infringing on freedoms to do it.

A license like the BSD or X Consortium license, by contrast, does
indeed tend to encourage private modifications that never get rolled
back into the original source base, because it's possible with those
licenses to create non-free private modifications.

If the clause were changed into a request instead of a requirement,
it would be no problem at all.

The real killer, of course, is the "you promise never to sue Lucent
for any IP thing" clause.  That's so awful by itself that it dwarfs
the other problems in the license.

I know that Rob Pike and the others who pressured Lucent to make the
code as free as it is were trying to make it more available and to
make it free software.  But the result seems as if they weren't really
aware of what the community actually wants in free sofware, and so
they failed to extract from the lawyers what would actually work.

If there's another go round with the Lucent lawyers (and I certainly
hope there will be), it might be useful to invite Eric Raymond or
someone else of that ilk to help with the process to avoid this kind
of problem.

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

ravage@ssz.com (Jim Choate) writes:

> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
>
> > >   You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
> > >   copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
> > >   related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
> > >   You if used for any purpose.
>
> Which is effectively different from Open Source results, how again?
>
> Open Source says if you take my code and use it, your code is Open Source
> and if you distribute it you have to leave my headers and such in.

Well, you're not quite right here; I'll clear up the subtleties.
Using open source software doesn't impose any obligations on you to
make your own code open source; I assume you must mean something like
copying parts of it into your own code.  (This might seem obvious [as
indeed it should be] but some people seem to think that merely running
the program supposedly incurs some kind of obligations.)

Also, your description seems to be about copylefted software
specifically.  Open source (or its synonym, free software) includes
things which aren't copylefted at all (for example, the X Consortium
or BSD licenses): you can copy parts of that software into your own
program and it doesn't impose any obligations on you to make the
resulting program open source/free software.

So, with the understanding we're talking about the copyleft, and
about actual copying and not just use of the program, you are roughly
right.  If you take part of a GPL'd program, and put it in yours, you
must distribute the combination under the GPL.  That means that if you
give a copy to Fred, you must also give Fred all the rights you had;
a copyleft means you aren't allowed to restrict Fred.

But it imposes no obligation of any kind on you to distribute your
software to John, Mary, or Alice, whether on request or otherwise.
You and Fred are perfectly entitled, under the GPL, to keep your
modifications entirely private if you should so choose.

> The Plan 9 license says if you distribute Plan 9 code and the Plan 9
> license holder finds something interesting, then the developer agrees to
> provide binary, source, and documentation.

That's the difference.  Under a copyleft (like, for example, the GPL),
you have no obligation of any kind to send your changes back to
anyone, whether they ask or not.  Most authors request people to send
back changes, but there is absolutely no obligation to comply.

This confusion is partly caused by the term "open source".  That term,
by avoiding talk of freedom, makes people think the real issue is
whether something is "open" or "visible".  But actually it's perfectly
fine to have secret modifications to GPL'd software that you carefully
guard and only show a special few.  This is true for both "open
source" and "free software"; the two terms define the same set of
programs.  But the former term leads to some confusions because of its
terminology.

Lest you think this is irrelevant, consider that the availability of
free software has been important for those living in repressive
governments, and who have a desire to keep their activities private.
Such a person might well want to modify the software to have some
special samizdat feature, say.  But they need to be allowed to keep
their changes private and not be forced to broadcast them to the
world.  Under the GPL, this right is guaranteed, but under the Plan 9
license, it is not.

This would be enough to keep Plan 9 from counting as free software (or
"open source").  But let me stress, the rule "you can never sue us no
matter what for our IP violations" is a far worse disaster than the
issue of being required to send changes back.

Thomas

[9fans] Re: one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

"Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> One reason that ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on is that Rob Pike
> et. al. filed for patents on some of the ideas in Plan 9.  ...

I disagree.

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[T. Kurt Bond]

ravage@ssz.com (Jim Choate) wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.3.96.1011109195430.364R-100000@einstein.ssz.com>...
> On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, T. Kurt Bond wrote:
>
> > >   You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a
> > >   copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and
> > >   related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by
> > >   You if used for any purpose.

I'm not sure how your article ended up with double levels of quoting
for the section from my article, since as far as I can see you were
directly replying to my article.

> Which is effectively different from Open Source results, how again?

I was pointing out that since Stallman originally wrote his article about
the problems he saw with the Plan 9 license that the Plan 9 license had
*changed* slightly, eliminating *that* problem and leaving the others.

As for bitching, *I* wasn't.  The Plan 9 license holders can release (or not)
Plan 9 under any license they want, and I appreciate the fact that they
choose to release it under a license that lets me run the executables and
read the source code.

On the other hand, I don't find it surprising that the GNU Project is
unwilling to use Plan 9 under the condition that they give up their right
to sue the license holders of Plan 9 if those license holders begin using
and distributing GNU software in ways that the GNU software's licenses
prohibit.

So the GNU Project can't use Plan 9, and other people can.  I don't see
that as a serious problem.  An unfortunate minor accident of history,
perhaps, but not a serious problem.
--
T. Kurt Bond, tkb@tkb.mpl.com

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Ralph Corderoy]

Hi Thomas,

> But it imposes no obligation of any kind on you to distribute your
> software to John, Mary, or Alice, whether on request or otherwise.
> You and Fred are perfectly entitled, under the GPL, to keep your
> modifications entirely private if you should so choose.

But Fred is also entitled, if he so chooses, to distribute the program
and the source as far and as wide as he likes without any further
agreement from me.  Am I correct?

Cheers,


Ralph.

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Steve Kilbane]

I've a sneaking suspicion - entirely without evidence - that the
actual contents of the licence are less significant than the impact
of zealots raving about it. If people read the licence for themselves,
and then decide it's not for them, then fine. Though I'd suggest that
the available papers are an even more rewarding read.

steve

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Jim Choate]

On Mon, 12 Nov 2001, Steve Kilbane wrote:

> I've a sneaking suspicion - entirely without evidence - that the
> actual contents of the licence are less significant than the impact
> of zealots raving about it. If people read the licence for themselves,
> and then decide it's not for them, then fine. Though I'd suggest that
> the available papers are an even more rewarding read.

It's more important that you make it out. The reality is that even the
mass of moderates out there are interested in the license. Almost every CD
that I've given away has been accompanied by a 5-10 minute chat about the
license and who makes money off it. Addressing these issues, as unpopular
as they may be, in some manner other than chunking them into some dead-end
mailing list is necessary. Either the objections need to be addressed and
shown to be misunderstandings or else the license may need changing to
make it more acceptable.

That people have questions about license should have a bigger reaction
than making one sad.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

             Day by day the Penguins are making me lose my mind.

                                             Bumper Sticker

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage@ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

[9fans] Re: one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

"Douglas A. Gwyn" <DAGwyn@null.net> writes:

> "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" wrote:
> > One reason that ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on is that Rob Pike
> > et. al. filed for patents on some of the ideas in Plan 9.  ...
>
> I disagree.

With which part?  That he scared people at the AI lab by his curious
"I didn't understand the patent applications I signed" statement?
That people are in fact worried about software patents?  It's one
reason; it's obviously not the only one.

Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on

[Thomas Bushnell, BSG]

Ralph Corderoy <ralph@inputplus.demon.co.uk> writes:

> > But it imposes no obligation of any kind on you to distribute your
> > software to John, Mary, or Alice, whether on request or otherwise.
> > You and Fred are perfectly entitled, under the GPL, to keep your
> > modifications entirely private if you should so choose.
>
> But Fred is also entitled, if he so chooses, to distribute the program
> and the source as far and as wide as he likes without any further
> agreement from me.  Am I correct?

Certainly.  If you choose to give a copy to Fred, and it's copylefted,
then Fred gets the right to send copies where he wants, when he
wants.  But neither he nor you have any obligation to do so.