Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 490 bytes --]

Just in case you notice.  I fixed a couple of capitalization and grammar
mistakes in the Licence noticed by Micah Stetson.  Since I changed
something, I changed the version number as well.

For the combination conspiracy theorists & numerologists out there, the
new md5sum of the LICENCE divided by hex DEADBEEF*DEADBABE ends with
the 5 characters c1a55 which looks like class which might mean we're
switching to C++ or maybe C# which is really C++ with the pluses shifted
a little.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 1453 bytes --]

From: Micah Stetson <micah@cnm-vra.com>
To: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com
Subject: Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 14:51:26 -0700
Message-ID: <20020910145126.A18040@cnm-vra.com>

> My eyes are tearing from trying to read this friggin thing over and
> over again.  If anyone notices more problems, please email me asap.

Just a couple of typos:

163c163
< 	Agreement.  A copy of the Plan 9 open Source License Agreement is
---
> 	Agreement.  A copy of the Plan 9 Open Source License Agreement is
181c181
< available from You, and describes how to it may be obtained by
---
> available from You, and describes how it may be obtained by

Thanks for getting this license stuff fixed, I really appreciate
the work you guys do to make Plan 9 available for the rest of us.

Micah

Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[Lucio De Re]

On Sat, Sep 21, 2002 at 09:55:15AM -0400, presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
>
> For the combination conspiracy theorists & numerologists out there, the
> new md5sum of the LICENCE divided by hex DEADBEEF*DEADBABE ends with
> the 5 characters c1a55 which looks like class which might mean we're
> switching to C++ or maybe C# which is really C++ with the pluses shifted
> a little.

Surely it's going to be Java?

++L

Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[Jack Johnson]

presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com wrote:
> switching to C++ or maybe C# which is really C++ with the pluses shifted
> a little.

I always assumed it was shorthand for C++++.

Besides, we're not that easy to fool.  We all know you'd use D♭ instead.

-Jack

[9fans] license

[David Presotto]

Sources now contains a new /LICENSE /LICENSE.gpl /sys/lib/postscript/font/NOTICE
/lib/font/bit/lucida/NOTICE and /plan9/lib/font/bit/lucida/NOTICE.  I'm working
on replacing the licenses in the distribution's plan9.iso.bz2 file.

Re: [9fans] license

[Lucio De Re]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 09:30:08AM +0900, okamoto@granite.cias.osakafu-u.ac.jp wrote:
>
> Well, if we have no graphic library for Alef, it's not so attracting to me
> anymore.  Thread and draw + control libraries can work now for it.  :-)
>
It's not quite a chicken-and-egg situation: the licence terms can
be established regardless of the existence of libraries, I think.

But I will get back to the Alef port before long.  I'm just caught
up in all sorts of extra-curricular activities presently.  After
October 1st things ought to be easier.

Porting the Alef libraries is not quite at the top of the priority
list, but it is pretty high.  Lack of clarity on the licence issue
drops the priority only a little bit.

++L

Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[okamoto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 390 bytes --]

Thanks Dave.

When I read the LICENSE term on the web site, I scared what happened
there, because the contents are completely different from that We've
been felt what was Plan 9 community.   It seemed to be some of black
joke.   However, it was written on the formal web site as Plan9's LICENSE
term...

Anyway, now I can continue my work on Plan 9.  Thank you very much.

Kenji

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2192 bytes --]

From: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2002 15:21:18 -0400
Message-ID: <6546803f004429565d740d65525b51a0@plan9.bell-labs.com>

The version number out there is now 1.3.  It should be essentially
(modulo dates and version number) what was out there before our
slight journey into an alternate reality.  I gave it a new version
number because there were already two different 1.1's and 1.2's
and I want to avoid confusing myself again.

My eyes are tearing from trying to read this friggin thing over and
over again.  If anyone notices more problems, please email me asap.

Thanks to everyone for putting up with this, for telling us the
intermediate license was unacceptable, and for telling me when
version numbers didn't match.

Re: [9fans] license

[okamoto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 269 bytes --]

>I suppose bringing up the subject of licence terms surrounding Alef
>won't win me any friends, either :-)

Well, if we have no graphic library for Alef, it's not so attracting to me
anymore.  Thread and draw + control libraries can work now for it.  :-)

Kenji

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3137 bytes --]

From: Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] license
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 16:47:08 +0200
Message-ID: <20020909164708.C12632@cackle.proxima.alt.za>

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Eric Grosse wrote:

> The license change happened while a number of us were out of town
> and we're working to get it reconsidered.  Please give us a few
> more days to try to straighten this out.
>
Aren't we in a situation where the licence ('scuse the spelling)
is trying to address conflicting objectives?  I don't for one moment
believe that the users community should dictate the terms of the
licence, but perhaps we can isolate portions of the code that Lucent
believes ought to be protected and release as much as possible with
only OSI-style restrictions.

And on that score, I have cartographic (maps, I suppose) that were
released under the 2nd Edition licence.  Was it licencing or pure
practicality that kept the data from being released under 3ed or
4ed?

I suppose bringing up the subject of licence terms surrounding Alef
won't win me any friends, either :-)

++L

[9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[presotto]

The version number out there is now 1.3.  It should be essentially
(modulo dates and version number) what was out there before our
slight journey into an alternate reality.  I gave it a new version
number because there were already two different 1.1's and 1.2's
and I want to avoid confusing myself again.

My eyes are tearing from trying to read this friggin thing over and
over again.  If anyone notices more problems, please email me asap.

Thanks to everyone for putting up with this, for telling us the
intermediate license was unacceptable, and for telling me when
version numbers didn't match.

Re: [9fans] *&^(%&*^$% license

[Sam]

>
> Thanks to everyone for putting up with this, for telling us the
> intermediate license was unacceptable, and for telling me when
> version numbers didn't match.
>

... and thanks to you and Eric for assuaging the concerns of
the 9 crowd ASAP yesterday morning.  I had the sinking suspicion
over the weekend that we'd eventually hear one of you say, "it says
what?"

Cheers,

Sam

Re: [9fans] license

[Andrey S. Kukhar]

What else not distributed with system only because of size (except maps, TeX)?

-ask

> The contents of /lib/roads from the second edition
> are publicly-derived maps, and they are not distributed
> only because of size.  If you want particular pieces
> they are at ftp://plan9.bell-labs.com/tiger
>
> Russ

Re: [9fans] LICENSE

[presotto]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 92 bytes --]

% md5sum /n/sources/plan9/LICENSE
7cfeab06fec3710377433e711705cb14	/n/sources/plan9/LICENSE

[-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2016 bytes --]

From: Peter Downs <ragnar@ragnartech.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] LICENSE
Date: Mon, 9 Sep 2002 15:20:27 -0500
Message-ID: <20020909202027.GC30051@ragnartech.net>

> Nostra culpa, nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa.
>
> I put back the old (previous) version of the license.  Please act
> like the last few weeks didn't happen, hard though that might be.

So, what is the version number of the current, valid license?

peter

--
perl -ne'chomp;$a.=pack"h*",$_;END{print"\n$a\n\n"}'<<EOM
05564756270244f677e637a0
55e49485023597374756d637021446d696e6963747271647f627a0
55e6966756273796479702f666023547e2024586f6d61637a0
635313e2936323e263233393a0
EOM

Re: [9fans] LICENSE

[Peter Downs]

> Nostra culpa, nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa.
>
> I put back the old (previous) version of the license.  Please act
> like the last few weeks didn't happen, hard though that might be.

So, what is the version number of the current, valid license?

peter

--
perl -ne'chomp;$a.=pack"h*",$_;END{print"\n$a\n\n"}'<<EOM
05564756270244f677e637a0
55e49485023597374756d637021446d696e6963747271647f627a0
55e6966756273796479702f666023547e2024586f6d61637a0
635313e2936323e263233393a0
EOM

[9fans] LICENSE

[presotto]

Nostra culpa, nostra culpa, nostra maxima culpa.

I put back the old (previous) version of the license.  Please act
like the last few weeks didn't happen, hard though that might be.

Re: [9fans] license

[Lucio De Re]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 11:14:55AM -0400, Russ Cox wrote:
> [ ... ]  If you want particular pieces
> they are at ftp://plan9.bell-labs.com/tiger
>
I asked because I wanted to avoid infringing the licence if I
installed them on a public access Plan 9 host.

Thank you for the clarification.

++L

Re: [9fans] license

[Russ Cox]

The contents of /lib/roads from the second edition
are publicly-derived maps, and they are not distributed
only because of size.  If you want particular pieces
they are at ftp://plan9.bell-labs.com/tiger

Russ

Re: [9fans] license

[Lucio De Re]

On Mon, Sep 09, 2002 at 09:06:49AM -0400, Eric Grosse wrote:

> The license change happened while a number of us were out of town
> and we're working to get it reconsidered.  Please give us a few
> more days to try to straighten this out.
>
Aren't we in a situation where the licence ('scuse the spelling)
is trying to address conflicting objectives?  I don't for one moment
believe that the users community should dictate the terms of the
licence, but perhaps we can isolate portions of the code that Lucent
believes ought to be protected and release as much as possible with
only OSI-style restrictions.

And on that score, I have cartographic (maps, I suppose) that were
released under the 2nd Edition licence.  Was it licencing or pure
practicality that kept the data from being released under 3ed or
4ed?

I suppose bringing up the subject of licence terms surrounding Alef
won't win me any friends, either :-)

++L

[9fans] license

[Eric Grosse]

Friends of Plan 9,

The license change happened while a number of us were out of town
and we're working to get it reconsidered.  Please give us a few
more days to try to straighten this out.

(And, no, it had nothing to do with factotum and secstore.  The
thing to watch out for there is commercial application of encrypted
key exchange, which may be covered by various people's patents.
I'm looking at porting factotum to Windows, but plan to keep secstore
on Plan 9 because I can administer that more securely than I know how
to do with Windows or Unix.)

Eric