[9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[Andy Elvey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1237 bytes --]

Hi everyone - I'm a first-timer here -

   I'm thinking of doing a "public domain" implementation (in C) of 9P.
I've seen the large listing (on the cat-v site) of existing 9P
implementations which are under various licenses, and so in thinking
about where those people obtained the required information from, the
following questions came to mind -

a) The information *must* have been obtained from the Plan 9 technical
docs (specification papers) or the Plan 9 man pages. Can the information
in either of these be regarded as being "public domain"?  (It would seem
to be, given the number of different licenses of the various
implementations. They could surely not have taken LPL-licensed code and
then converted it to GPL, BSD, MIT......?

It would seem that the proliferation of licenses could only be done if
the original source of the information was "public domain". )

b) If the answer to (a) is "yes" - does that include the source-code
shown in those papers (and the man pages)?

I've seen the "public domain" implementation of 9P in Python (by Tim
Newsham), so I assume he got the required information from the places
I've mentioned.

Thanks for your time - looking forward to your replies.
- Andy


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1739 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[hiro]

nobody here's a lawyer.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[andrey mirtchovski]

I'm not a lawyer but I play one in comedy clubs. The first
implementation of 9p came about long before Plan 9 had a free (as in
rms) license. Nobody got sued, nobody died, although a few bystanders
were maimed.

My advice as your lawyer [in comedy] would be to go nuts and do
whatever you want. The documentation[1] is a good place to start if
you don't want to look at any source (no license required to see
that!), and if you want to cover all corner cases, a running Plan 9
kernel is a good client/server to test against.

----
1: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/man/5/INDEX.html

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[andrey mirtchovski]

> (no license required to see
> that!)

there is, however, a copyright link at the bottom of each man page. as
your lawyer [in comedy] i advise you to click it.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[Andy Elvey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1228 bytes --]

Hi Andrey - thanks for your reply!

On 25/07/12 14:47, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer but I play one in comedy clubs. The first
> implementation of 9p came about long before Plan 9 had a free (as in
> rms) license. Nobody got sued, nobody died, although a few bystanders
> were maimed.
Interesting. It's good to find out a bit of the history behind 9p.
>
> My advice as your lawyer [in comedy] would be to go nuts and do
> whatever you want. The documentation[1] is a good place to start if
> you don't want to look at any source (no license required to see
> that!), and if you want to cover all corner cases, a running Plan 9
> kernel is a good client/server to test against.
>
> ----
> 1: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/man/5/INDEX.html
Thanks for that!  I'll check that page out too.
Btw - I clicked on the "copyright" link at the bottom, but the link is
dead - nothing but a 404 page error.

In looking at Tim Newsham's P9.py, he has a comment in the code - "9P
protocol implementation as documented in plan9 intro(5) and <fcall.h>."
( I would likely be even more cautious and avoid looking at any header
files if possible. )
Thanks again, Andrey - you've been very helpful!
- Andy

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1923 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[erik quanstrom]

> In looking at Tim Newsham's P9.py, he has a comment in the code - "9P
> protocol implementation as documented in plan9 intro(5) and <fcall.h>."
> ( I would likely be even more cautious and avoid looking at any header
> files if possible. )
> Thanks again, Andrey - you've been very helpful!

section 5 of the manual should be a complete description of the protocol.
the comment might be slightly misleading.

that not withstanding, ianal, but my understanding is that header files, are
considered similar to facts under copyright law, and therefore not copyrightable.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[John Floren]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 8:31 PM, Andy Elvey <andy.elvey@paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> Hi Andrey - thanks for your reply!
>
> On 25/07/12 14:47, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
>
> I'm not a lawyer but I play one in comedy clubs. The first
> implementation of 9p came about long before Plan 9 had a free (as in
> rms) license. Nobody got sued, nobody died, although a few bystanders
> were maimed.
>
> Interesting. It's good to find out a bit of the history behind 9p.
>
> My advice as your lawyer [in comedy] would be to go nuts and do
> whatever you want. The documentation[1] is a good place to start if
> you don't want to look at any source (no license required to see
> that!), and if you want to cover all corner cases, a running Plan 9
> kernel is a good client/server to test against.
>
> ----
> 1: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/man/5/INDEX.html
>
> Thanks for that!  I'll check that page out too.
> Btw - I clicked on the "copyright" link at the bottom, but the link is dead
> - nothing but a 404 page error.
>
> In looking at Tim Newsham's P9.py, he has a comment in the code - "9P
> protocol implementation as documented in plan9 intro(5) and <fcall.h>."
> ( I would likely be even more cautious and avoid looking at any header files
> if possible. )
> Thanks again, Andrey - you've been very helpful!
> - Andy

Just write the code, nobody cares. The manual pages define an
interface, and you're going to implement it. The manual pages are
copyrighted, sure, because they're written works and are automatically
protected by copyright.

Besides the recent Google vs. Oracle fiasco, I can't think of a time
an open-source project had legal problems by writing new code to
implement an API. And, based on a brief reading of
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf, it looks as though a
US judge has ruled that an API is not subject to copyright; if you
implement the 9P API, you should be fine. Also, since you're doing a
free reimplementation of code which is currently available free to
everyone by the creators (Lucent), I have a hard time figuring out
exactly what basis they'd have for a lawsuit.


john

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[andrey mirtchovski]

> Btw - I clicked on the "copyright" link at the bottom, but the link is dead
> - nothing but a 404 page error.

that's the joke :) plan9 has been considered a dead operating system
for a long time.

from my (admittedly little) experience with 9p implementations, the
ones done "outside" of plan9 code influence were done based on the man
pages and then tested against the plan9 kernel driver. the
implementations that came after Lucent Public Licence 1.0.2 (the
OSS-approved one) all share a few similarities, mostly in structs. I
think they all "gleaned" from Russ Cox's plan9port C code which may
have been used as a reference. the 9p code in the linux kernel, i
believe, doesn't share similarities in its data structs with plan9
(compare p9_fcall with fcall).

I think Tim's py9p came after the OSS approval of the Lucent licence.
I can tell you that Tim's original implementation used an
unmarshalling routine that was definitely not derived from read9pmsg.
it was (is) very python-y.

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[erik quanstrom]

> that's the joke :) plan9 has been considered a dead operating system
> for a long time.

ssssh.  don't tell my employer.

- erik

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[Skip Tavakkolian]

For a dead OS, Plan 9 sure gets around ;)

Plan 9, a nurse-log of modern computing.

-Skip

On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:10 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:

>> that's the joke :) plan9 has been considered a dead operating system
>> for a long time.
>
> ssssh.  don't tell my employer.
>
> - erik
>

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[Jens Staal]

2012/7/25 Skip Tavakkolian <skip.tavakkolian@gmail.com>:
> For a dead OS, Plan 9 sure gets around ;)
>
> Plan 9, a nurse-log of modern computing.
>
> -Skip
>
> On Jul 24, 2012, at 9:10 PM, erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net> wrote:
>
>>> that's the joke :) plan9 has been considered a dead operating system
>>> for a long time.
>>
>> ssssh.  don't tell my employer.
>>
>> - erik
>>
>

It must be Eros stimulating its  pituitary and pineal glands. ;)

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plan_9_from_Outer_Space)

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[Andy Elvey]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1517 bytes --]

On 25/07/12 16:06, John Floren wrote:
(snip)
> Just write the code, nobody cares. The manual pages define an
> interface, and you're going to implement it. The manual pages are
> copyrighted, sure, because they're written works and are automatically
> protected by copyright. Besides the recent Google vs. Oracle fiasco, I
> can't think of a time an open-source project had legal problems by
> writing new code to implement an API. And, based on a brief reading of
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf, it looks as though a
> US judge has ruled that an API is not subject to copyright; if you
> implement the 9P API, you should be fine. Also, since you're doing a
> free reimplementation of code which is currently available free to
> everyone by the creators (Lucent), I have a hard time figuring out
> exactly what basis they'd have for a lawsuit. john
Hi John - thanks for that.
Thanks also to everyone who has commented in this thread - you've been
very helpful!  This is one of the most helpful lists that I've been on.
This feedback is very useful as a guide to how to proceed.

Although I'm not running Plan 9 at present (I'm on Linux), I'm very
impressed with its elegance. Everything from kbdfs to the plumber to the
Venti filesystem - it's all beautifully thought-out.  The way that Venti
uses SHA1 hashes to store data reminds me a lot of Git (which I also
really like - there's another elegantly designed bit of software).
Thanks again, all - bye for now :)
- Andy


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2175 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] Plan 9 technical docs and man pages - licensed or "public domain"?

[David Leimbach]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1710 bytes --]

On Tue, Jul 24, 2012 at 11:01 PM, Andy Elvey <andy.elvey@paradise.net.nz>wrote:

>  On 25/07/12 16:06, John Floren wrote:
> (snip)
>
> Just write the code, nobody cares. The manual pages define an interface,
> and you're going to implement it. The manual pages are copyrighted, sure,
> because they're written works and are automatically protected by copyright.
> Besides the recent Google vs. Oracle fiasco, I can't think of a time an
> open-source project had legal problems by writing new code to implement an
> API. And, based on a brief reading of
> http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1202.pdf, it looks as though a US
> judge has ruled that an API is not subject to copyright; if you implement
> the 9P API, you should be fine. Also, since you're doing a free
> reimplementation of code which is currently available free to everyone by
> the creators (Lucent), I have a hard time figuring out exactly what basis
> they'd have for a lawsuit. john
>
> Hi John - thanks for that.
> Thanks also to everyone who has commented in this thread - you've been
> very helpful!  This is one of the most helpful lists that I've been on.
> This feedback is very useful as a guide to how to proceed.
>
> Although I'm not running Plan 9 at present (I'm on Linux), I'm very
> impressed with its elegance. Everything from kbdfs to the plumber to the
> Venti filesystem - it's all beautifully thought-out.  The way that Venti
> uses SHA1 hashes to store data reminds me a lot of Git (which I also really
> like - there's another elegantly designed bit of software).
> Thanks again, all - bye for now :)
> - Andy
>
>

Linux of course has v9fs which is a 9P implementation in the kernel.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2483 bytes --]