* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification @ 2004-02-22 13:49 David Presotto 2004-02-23 15:24 ` Jim Choate 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: David Presotto @ 2004-02-22 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: ekarttun, 9fans [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 323 bytes --] The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without that being considered part of 'the original program'. However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints. [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 2682 bytes --] From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi> To: Plan9 ML <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2004 11:12:06 +0200 Message-ID: <20040222091206.GA20532@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI> Hello Does the Plan9 licence ("Lucent Public Licence 1.02") imply any licensing constraints for code linking against code protected by it? That is, can I link against the plan9 code if my code is under a different (BSD) licence? The licence speaks of "the original program" but that sounds quite ambiguous in the case of libraries... - Einar Karttunen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification 2004-02-22 13:49 [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification David Presotto @ 2004-02-23 15:24 ` Jim Choate 2004-02-23 15:52 ` David Presotto 0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2004-02-23 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans; +Cc: hangar18-general On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote: > The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered > contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without > that being considered part of 'the original program'. > > However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other > part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints. And there is no requirement to provide source if you include the binaries. So, I can build a project and link it into P9 and as long as no P9 source goes with it I'm ok? The license (Open or Closed) with regard to the project is not relevant. Only whether I provide P9 source. If I do include any source from P9 then I must provide souce to the product/program/extension. Correct? -- -- Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles 512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux 512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification 2004-02-23 15:24 ` Jim Choate @ 2004-02-23 15:52 ` David Presotto 2004-02-23 16:18 ` Jim Choate 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen 0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: David Presotto @ 2004-02-23 15:52 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2058 bytes --] I've got to be more precise here, obviously. The license talks about two types of people (that can be the same of course); contributors and distributors. If you want what you wrote to be a contribution, you must affirmatively say it somewhere (like email to the Labs or 9fans containing the contribution or announcing it to the web). You are then a contributor and your contribution and you are protected by the license should anyone distribute it. A contributor also is required to provide source and required to provide a 'royalty free patent license...' to anyone that accepts the license. If you want to distribute something containing plan9 source or plan9 binaries you are a distributor (D). A distributor can distribute under a different license and doesn't have to disclose any source that it not a 'contribution'. However, D's license must be compatible with ours, i.e., must have similar cover your ass clauses (see the license for specifics, but I believe most OSI licenses would be satisfactory). Also, if the distribution is commercial (for recompense of some sort) the distributor must indemnify all contributors against suits brought as a result of actions taken by the distributor (false claims, bad software, malicious behavior, ...). If you link your code with our libraries and distribute, we have taken that not to be a distribution since the only people that can run it are somehow in the chain of licensee or distributor so that they would already have the libraries. If you don't want to trust us always being that nice, you can distribute your own object files without the libraries since the end user can link anyways. The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a contribution. So if you want to base something on Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries) but don't want to give away your work, you can do so. However, if you want to make money off of it, you have to take financial responsibility for your actions. [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3134 bytes --] From: Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> To: <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Cc: <hangar18-general@open-forge.com> Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2004 09:24:47 -0600 (CST) Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.33.0402230921400.28584-100000@einstein.ssz.com> On Sun, 22 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote: > The intention is that linking with our libraries not be considered > contributing or redistributing, i.e., you can distribute without > that being considered part of 'the original program'. > > However, if you include the source of the libraries (or any other > part of the system) that is protected by the license constraints. And there is no requirement to provide source if you include the binaries. So, I can build a project and link it into P9 and as long as no P9 source goes with it I'm ok? The license (Open or Closed) with regard to the project is not relevant. Only whether I provide P9 source. If I do include any source from P9 then I must provide souce to the product/program/extension. Correct? -- -- Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles 512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux 512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification 2004-02-23 15:52 ` David Presotto @ 2004-02-23 16:18 ` Jim Choate 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2004-02-23 16:18 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans; +Cc: hangar18-general Hi David, Thanks. I'll have to ponder this for a while. I'm sure it will raise more questions. On Mon, 23 Feb 2004, David Presotto wrote: > I've got to be more precise here, obviously. > > The license talks about two types of people > (that can be the same of course); contributors > and distributors. If you want what you wrote > to be a contribution, you must affirmatively > say it somewhere (like email to the Labs > or 9fans containing the contribution or announcing > it to the web). You are then a contributor and > your contribution and you are protected by the > license should anyone distribute it. > > A contributor also is required to provide source > and required to provide a 'royalty free > patent license...' to anyone that accepts the > license. > > If you want to distribute something containing > plan9 source or plan9 binaries you are a distributor > (D). A distributor can distribute under a different > license and doesn't have to disclose any source > that it not a 'contribution'. However, D's > license must be compatible with ours, i.e., > must have similar cover your ass clauses > (see the license for specifics, but I believe > most OSI licenses would be satisfactory). > > Also, if the distribution is commercial (for > recompense of some sort) the distributor must > indemnify all contributors against suits brought > as a result of actions taken by the distributor > (false claims, bad software, malicious behavior, ...). > > If you link your code with our libraries and distribute, we > have taken that not to be a distribution since the > only people that can run it are somehow in the chain > of licensee or distributor so that they would already > have the libraries. If you don't want to trust us > always being that nice, you can distribute your own > object files without the libraries since the end > user can link anyways. > > The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T > HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a > contribution. So if you want to base something on > Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries) > but don't want to give away your work, you can > do so. However, if you want to make money off of > it, you have to take financial responsibility for > your actions. -- -- Open Forge, LLC 24/365 Onsite Support for PCs, Networks, & Game Consoles 512-695-4126 (Austin, Tx.) help@open-forge.com Hangar 18 Open Source Distributed Computing Using Plan 9 & Linux 512-451-7087 http://open-forge.org/hangar18 James Choate 512-451-7087 ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.com ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification 2004-02-23 15:52 ` David Presotto 2004-02-23 16:18 ` Jim Choate @ 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen 2004-02-25 13:49 ` David Presotto 2004-02-27 18:14 ` [9fans] Hangar 18 Update - March 2004 Jim Choate 1 sibling, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Einar Karttunen @ 2004-02-25 7:10 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans On 23.02 10:52, David Presotto wrote: > The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T > HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a > contribution. So if you want to base something on > Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries) > but don't want to give away your work, you can > do so. However, if you want to make money off of > it, you have to take financial responsibility for > your actions. I am writing code which directly touches GPL source in one project and Plan9 source in another. I am not mixing Plan9 and GPL licenced files in any way, but need a way to write my own code that I can use with both. I was thinking of BSD licencing the code, so that the licence would not complicate things needlessly. (It is quite difficult to relicence if I receive patches from other people). Is there any problem with this approach and the Plan9 licence? I am thinking of just distributing a patchset containing my own code. As the licence is quite complex I don't want to be a contributor or distributor as the legalize is too complex for me to understand. The final results would two separate things one under the Plan9 licence and one under the GPL. But my own code being BSD (which should be compatible with both) should give more freedom for future. Or is there a better way? - Einar Karttunen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen @ 2004-02-25 13:49 ` David Presotto 2004-02-27 18:14 ` [9fans] Hangar 18 Update - March 2004 Jim Choate 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: David Presotto @ 2004-02-25 13:49 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans [-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1551 bytes --] I'ld need to know your situation a little better. What do you mean by 'touches Plan 9 code' or 'touches GPL code'? If you are writing code that just links against our code and are just releasing the source (or unlinked object files), our license doesn't apply to you at all, i.e., you can do whatever you want with the code. If you release it under BSD and want it to be part of our Plan 9 distribution, I'll have to keep it apart (in its own directory) and include the BSD license in that directory. That's because, the BSD requires the list of conditions and disclaimers to stay with the source code. That would be fine with us. We release stuff under GPL, LPL, and a few other licenses on our CD. It just has to be kept separate. If you are the only author of the code, you can also release it under as many licenses as you want. If you desire it to be part of our distribution and not kept separate (i.e. so that other Plan 9ers can mix it into their LPL licensed code) you can release it under the BSD (and/or GPL) license to everyone else and contribute it to Plan 9 under the Plan 9 license. I understand the fear of the legal language in our license. I would have used BSD if my lawyers had allowed it. The bad part about multiple licenses is figuring out what to do with updates. If communities using very different licenses contribute code back to you under their own licenses, then you start having to keep very distinct records of your own since they may have mixed in GPL's or LPL'd or BSD'd code. [-- Attachment #2: Type: message/rfc822, Size: 3854 bytes --] From: Einar Karttunen <ekarttun@cs.helsinki.fi> To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification Date: Wed, 25 Feb 2004 09:10:10 +0200 Message-ID: <20040225071010.GA3961@melkki.cs.Helsinki.FI> On 23.02 10:52, David Presotto wrote: > The salient point is that SOURCE YOU WRITE DOESN'T > HAVE TO BE MADE PUBLIC unless you call it a > contribution. So if you want to base something on > Plan 9 (including hacking kernel and libraries) > but don't want to give away your work, you can > do so. However, if you want to make money off of > it, you have to take financial responsibility for > your actions. I am writing code which directly touches GPL source in one project and Plan9 source in another. I am not mixing Plan9 and GPL licenced files in any way, but need a way to write my own code that I can use with both. I was thinking of BSD licencing the code, so that the licence would not complicate things needlessly. (It is quite difficult to relicence if I receive patches from other people). Is there any problem with this approach and the Plan9 licence? I am thinking of just distributing a patchset containing my own code. As the licence is quite complex I don't want to be a contributor or distributor as the legalize is too complex for me to understand. The final results would two separate things one under the Plan9 licence and one under the GPL. But my own code being BSD (which should be compatible with both) should give more freedom for future. Or is there a better way? - Einar Karttunen ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* [9fans] Hangar 18 Update - March 2004 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen 2004-02-25 13:49 ` David Presotto @ 2004-02-27 18:14 ` Jim Choate 1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread From: Jim Choate @ 2004-02-27 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw) To: 9fans; +Cc: hangar18-general Hangar 18 - Open Source Distributed Technology A global informal co-operative of amateur and professional computer and technology users focused on using Open Source technology for our problem solutions. In particular we use Linux, Plan 9, & Inferno as a base for our projects. The work is based arond a general 'tit-for-tat' approach to sharing of resources. Please visit our homepage for more information about what we're up to! http://open-forge.org/hangar18 For a general introduction and to set expectations all around please read, http://open-forge.org/hangar18/projects/hangar18_newbie_howto.html The Austin, Tx group meets the 1st and 3rd Thursday of each month from 6pm to 9pm (or later). Our current schedule is: March: 4th & 18th Please visit the homepage for instructions on attending the meetings. If you'd like to join our general mailing list then send, majordomo@open-forge.org an email which has in the body subscribe hangar18-general You should be subscribed to the list and recieve a notification back from the server. There are a variety of mailing lists currently available. Events & News: May 2-6, San Antonio - Common Spring 2004 Conference & Expo Hangar 18 Austin is volunteering to provide technical support and we hope to arrange at least one talk about Plan 9 and distributed computing. They can be reached at, http://www.common.org May 10-15, San Antonio - San Antonio College & SATLUG Spring 2004 GNU/Linux/Open Source Fest Another one that H18 Austin is volunteered for, again we hope to be giving at least one talk. More info at, http://satlug.org Contact Information: Open Forge, LLC Attn: Hangar 18 6901 N. Lamar Blvd. Austin, Tx. 78752 Office Hours: 9am - 5pm, Monday - Saturday 512-451-7087 (main number w/ vmb, callback next business day) 512-695-4126 (24/7 help desk, don't call for non-tech issues) hangar18-general@open-forge.org (must be subscribed, see above) staff@open-forge.com (general questions and help) help@open-forge.com (24/7 help desk, don't call for non-tech issues) http://open-forge.org http://open-forge.org/hangar18 ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-02-27 18:14 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-02-22 13:49 [9fans] Plan9 licence clarification David Presotto 2004-02-23 15:24 ` Jim Choate 2004-02-23 15:52 ` David Presotto 2004-02-23 16:18 ` Jim Choate 2004-02-25 7:10 ` Einar Karttunen 2004-02-25 13:49 ` David Presotto 2004-02-27 18:14 ` [9fans] Hangar 18 Update - March 2004 Jim Choate
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).