* [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on @ 2001-11-08 10:40 Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:41 ` [9fans] " Douglas A. Gwyn 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-08 10:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-08 10:40 [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 10:41 ` [9fans] " Douglas A. Gwyn 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2001-11-08 12:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans; +Cc: hangar18 [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 --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate @ 2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-09 14:34 ` T. Kurt Bond 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-09 10:17 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-09 14:34 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: T. Kurt Bond @ 2001-11-09 14:34 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-09 14:34 ` T. Kurt Bond @ 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 10:42 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 1 sibling, 2 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2001-11-10 2:00 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate @ 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 11:29 ` Ralph Corderoy 2001-11-12 10:42 ` T. Kurt Bond 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-12 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-12 11:29 ` Ralph Corderoy 2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Ralph Corderoy @ 2001-11-12 11:29 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-12 11:29 ` Ralph Corderoy @ 2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-13 10:27 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-12 10:42 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-12 20:24 ` Steve Kilbane 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: T. Kurt Bond @ 2001-11-12 10:42 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-12 10:42 ` T. Kurt Bond @ 2001-11-12 20:24 ` Steve Kilbane 2001-11-13 0:03 ` Jim Choate 0 siblings, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Steve Kilbane @ 2001-11-12 20:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-12 20:24 ` Steve Kilbane @ 2001-11-13 0:03 ` Jim Choate 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2001-11-13 0:03 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 --'- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-09 14:34 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate @ 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 1 sibling, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-12 10:33 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-08 10:40 [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate @ 2001-11-12 10:41 ` Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-11-13 10:26 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 1 sibling, 1 reply; 14+ messages in thread From: Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-11-12 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Re: one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on 2001-11-12 10:41 ` [9fans] " Douglas A. Gwyn @ 2001-11-13 10:26 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 0 siblings, 0 replies; 14+ messages in thread From: Thomas Bushnell, BSG @ 2001-11-13 10:26 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans "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. ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 14+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2001-11-13 10:27 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 14+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2001-11-08 10:40 [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-08 12:55 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-09 14:34 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-10 2:00 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 11:29 ` Ralph Corderoy 2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 10:42 ` T. Kurt Bond 2001-11-12 20:24 ` Steve Kilbane 2001-11-13 0:03 ` Jim Choate 2001-11-12 10:33 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG 2001-11-12 10:41 ` [9fans] " Douglas A. Gwyn 2001-11-13 10:26 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).