From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Date: Wed,  6 Sep 2000 10:35:31 +0000
From: "Michael Jeffrey." <michael@vitanuova.com>
Message-ID: <968235432.14443.0.nnrp-13.d4f0e306@news.demon.co.uk>
References: <39B4C71E.CEA88DDB@ysbl.york.ac.uk>, <bqwu2buc44y.fsf@bronze.lcs.mit.edu>
Subject: [9fans] Re: Kernighan interview (w/ Plan 9 mention)
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 038ba6c6-eac9-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

Conway Yee <yee@bronze.lcs.mit.edu> writes:

>Third, as it stands, Plan 9's license is hardly appropriate to those
>who would run it for serious applications.  Who wants to take the risk
>of having ATT own your application?

The grant back clause in the Plan 9 Open Source licence 4.0 does not
relate to your applications.  It is designed, on my reading, to
give rights to Lucent (Original Contributor) and other Contributors
(the rest of us) to get access to modifications made on the original source.
On my reading, neither Lucent nor anyone else has any lien over an
application that you develop under Plan 9.