* [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) @ 2021-04-11 16:46 Giacomo Tesio 2021-04-11 18:55 ` David du Colombier 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Giacomo Tesio @ 2021-04-11 16:46 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) 2021-04-11 16:46 [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) Giacomo Tesio @ 2021-04-11 18:55 ` David du Colombier 2021-04-12 6:53 ` Giacomo Tesio 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: David du Colombier @ 2021-04-11 18:55 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 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? 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) 2021-04-11 18:55 ` David du Colombier @ 2021-04-12 6:53 ` Giacomo Tesio 2021-04-12 7:40 ` hiro 0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread From: Giacomo Tesio @ 2021-04-12 6:53 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) 2021-04-12 6:53 ` Giacomo Tesio @ 2021-04-12 7:40 ` hiro 0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread From: hiro @ 2021-04-12 7:40 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans 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 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2021-04-12 7:42 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2021-04-11 16:46 [9fans] p9f licensing question (u9fs) Giacomo Tesio 2021-04-11 18:55 ` David du Colombier 2021-04-12 6:53 ` Giacomo Tesio 2021-04-12 7:40 ` hiro
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).