[9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs)

[9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs)

[Giacomo Tesio]

Hello 9fans,

browsing the 9p.io's sources of plan9 I have noticed that u9fs have a
specific LICENSE file that is not MIT, while the page header says
"Distributed under the MIT License".

What's the actual license under which u9fs is distributed by the
Plan 9 Foundation?


Giacomo

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7af5000e9aa9f587-Meb06d9ef91c0fe95cd859e9f
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs)

[David du Colombier]

> browsing the 9p.io's sources of plan9 I have noticed that u9fs have a
> specific LICENSE file that is not MIT, while the page header says
> "Distributed under the MIT License".
> 
> What's the actual license under which u9fs is distributed by the
> Plan 9 Foundation?

I suppose you are referring to this:

https://9p.io/sources/plan9/sys/src/cmd/unix/u9fs/LICENSE

This is an old license that was used by Lucent to share software
such as AWK, sam, u9fs, etc. as part of the Netlib collection.

This license was quite permissive and similar to the MIT license.

You can ignore this file and consider u9fs is distributed under MIT.

-- 
David du Colombier

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7af5000e9aa9f587-M92797301ac4a0c1429c31a67
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs)

[Giacomo Tesio]

Thanks David,

On Sun, 11 Apr 2021 20:55:33 +0200 David du Colombier wrote:

> > browsing the 9p.io's sources of plan9 I have noticed that u9fs have
> > a specific LICENSE file that is not MIT, while the page header says
> > "Distributed under the MIT License".
> > 
> > What's the actual license under which u9fs is distributed by the
> > Plan 9 Foundation?  
> 
> I suppose you are referring to this:
> 
> https://9p.io/sources/plan9/sys/src/cmd/unix/u9fs/LICENSE

Yes I am.
Sorry, I should have liked the page. 

> This is an old license that was used by Lucent to share software
> such as AWK, sam, u9fs, etc. as part of the Netlib collection.
> 
> This license was quite permissive and similar to the MIT license.

It looks so, but the wording is wierd (to my untrained eye):

```
Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
purpose without fee is hereby granted, ...
```

the fact is that "without fee" comes before "is hereby granted", not
after, so that it looks as a condition to the distribution grant.

Indeed the canonical MIT license does not mention fees and the "free of
charges" is clearly referred to the permission:
https://opensource.org/licenses/MIT

> You can ignore this file and consider u9fs is distributed under MIT.

Thanks!

But I think that to avoid future issues, the Plan 9 Foundation should
either remove the file or complement it with an explicit statement
about the new MIT licensing.


Giacomo

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7af5000e9aa9f587-Mf9e3729b6ba12e43297e212b
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription

Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs)

[hiro]

can we please move this nit-picking bureaucratic philosophing to the courts?

------------------------------------------
9fans: 9fans
Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/T7af5000e9aa9f587-M620dcfe7a511a8e9db4be046
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription