9fans - fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Thomas Bushnell, BSG" <tb+usenet@becket.net>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on
Date: Fri,  9 Nov 2001 10:17:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <87vgglujz7.fsf@becket.becket.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20011108145513.B0E9B199F2@mail.cse.psu.edu>

presotto@closedmind.org writes:

> On Thu Nov  8 05:45:28 EST 2001, tb+usenet@becket.net 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.
>
> This is hatefully unfair.  The shenanigans involve Rob spending months
> fighting with lawyers to get a license as close to possible to the
> model we originally gave them, i.e., ``do with it what you want, just don't
> sue us if it breaks''.  It's amazing to me how that became what it
> did.  However, its through no fault of Rob's, he got dragged kicking
> and screaming all the way.

You're pointing out that Rob Pike doesn't hold the keys.  I'm speaking
of the shenanigans of those who hold the keys.  It may be unfair that
the people who hold the keys won't let Plan 9 out, but it's still a
fact that they do so.

> I just reread the GPL.  The main differences are indeed our 2 clauses
>
> 1) our license is one sided.  We demand that, on request, modifications
>   are made available to Lucent if the modifications are otherwise
>   distributed.  The GPL requires them to be made available to anyone.

No, the GPL does not require them to be made available to anyone, with
the sole exception of people who want to make binary-only
distributions.  For people who distribute source, you can distribute
your changes to as few or as many people as you like

> 2) our license limits lawsuits in too general a way.  You can't sue
>   Lucent over intellectual property and keep the license.  There's
>   nothing like this in the GPL. Instead it says that you can't
>   include anything in the code that might have IP implications.
>   Should you do so, you can't redistribute.

The problem with #2 is a total disaster for free software.

It amounts to "Lucent wants the right to violate any license on
anything I write."

> I think lucent has been very upright about (1), i.e., if you give it
> to them, it gets redistributed.  I have no idea about (2) since its
> never come up when someone sued Lucent that I know of.

Certainly if I do send a change back to Lucent, and it's a free
software product, Lucent should have the right to distribute the
change to other people.  That's what freedom is.

But the problem is that I shouldn't have to send the change back to
Lucent.  It might be very expensive for me to do so, for example.  Now
this clause is much better than those which mandate sending all
changes back: it is only operative if Lucent actually asks for the
change to be sent back.

> In both cases the license is transitive.  Does that have to
> do with free or freedom?

"free software" as I use it, and as all those people who are committed
to it use it, is a fairly well-defined notion.  The boundaries are
sometimes fuzzy, but the Plan 9 license fails all of the tests out
there (the FSF defn, the Debian Free Software Guidelines, the *BSD
people, and so forth).

> It does seem to mean that there is no monetary cost to obtaining,
> using, and modifying the code other than the cost of copying it.  That
> pertains to both licenses.

You've greatly misunderstood the GPL then.  There is nothing about the
GPL which prevents charging more than the cost of copying for getting
a copy.  The FSF itself charges significantly more than the cost of
copying for a CD-ROM, and makes a tidy income from that trade.

Thomas


  reply	other threads:[~2001-11-09 10:17 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 77+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2001-11-08 14:55 presotto
2001-11-09 10:17 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG [this message]
2001-11-09 10:17 ` John S. Dyson
     [not found] <20011112170104.719C619ABA@mail.cse.psu.edu>
2001-12-29  4:03 ` Andrew Simmons
2001-11-13 11:13   ` Boyd Roberts
2001-11-13 15:53     ` Douglas A. Gwyn
2001-11-13 17:21     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2001-11-14 18:02 forsyth
2001-11-14 16:08 anothy
2001-11-14 14:43 presotto
2001-11-14 14:29 rob pike
2001-11-15 10:41 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-14  9:29 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-14  8:29 okamoto
2001-11-14  5:24 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-14  4:42 Russ Cox
2001-11-14  5:12 ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13 23:46 forsyth
2001-11-13 22:18 forsyth
2001-11-13 23:27 ` Chris Hollis-Locke
2001-11-14  4:38   ` Lucio De Re
2001-11-13 21:50 presotto
2001-11-14  0:40 ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13 21:46 Russ Cox
2001-11-13 21:46 Sape Mullender
2001-11-13 21:44 presotto
2001-11-13 21:47 ` andrey
2001-11-13 20:18 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13 20:17 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13 22:38 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13 19:58 presotto
2001-11-13 20:14 ` William Josephson
2001-11-13 21:39 ` Mike Haertel
2001-11-13 22:54 ` George Michaelson
2001-11-14  0:19   ` William Josephson
2001-11-12 19:24 anothy
2001-11-14  9:52 ` Eyal Lotem
2001-11-12 19:18 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-13  0:19 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13  2:02   ` Dan Cross
2001-11-13  2:16     ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13  2:27       ` William Josephson
2001-11-13 10:34     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 19:15 David Gordon Hogan
2001-11-12 17:06 anothy
2001-11-12 15:10 presotto
2001-11-12 13:14 nigel
2001-11-13  0:03 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13 18:04   ` Skip Tavakkolian
2001-11-14  9:52     ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 12:17 geoff
2001-11-13 10:25 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 11:12 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-12 13:48 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-13 10:27 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-13 16:21   ` Scott Schwartz
2001-11-09  9:38 okamoto
2001-11-09  9:21 Fco.J.Ballesteros
2001-11-09 11:23 ` pac
2001-11-12 10:32 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2001-11-12 10:45 ` David Rubin
2001-11-12 15:34   ` Ronald G Minnich
2001-11-09  7:42 Russ Cox
2001-11-08 13:46 forsyth
2001-11-09  0:51 ` Jim Choate
2001-11-08 10:40 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

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \
    --in-reply-to=87vgglujz7.fsf@becket.becket.net \
    --to=tb+usenet@becket.net \
    --cc=9fans@cse.psu.edu \
    /path/to/YOUR_REPLY

  https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
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).