[9fans] u9fs re-release

[9fans] u9fs re-release

[Russ Cox]

For people who want an example of a 9P2000 server but
are scared enough of the Plan 9 license not to look
at any of the Plan 9 source code, the u9fs source code
is now available under a trivial license(*), at
http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/research/u9fs.tgz.

On a related note, I'm not sure it was ever announced
here that over the summer Rob and Eric packaged up the
new Plan 9 print library in a form easily run on Unix
(and behaving with Unix semantics as far as things like
%u are concerned).  It is at
http://netlib.bell-labs.com/netlib/fp/p9fmt.tgz.

Enjoy.
Russ

(*) The actual license for u9fs (in the COPYRIGHT file
in the archive) is:

 * The authors of this software are Russ Cox, Sean Dorward, Eric Grosse, et al.
 * Copyright (c) 2002 by Lucent Technologies.
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, and distribute this software for any
 * purpose without fee is hereby granted, provided that this entire notice
 * is included in all copies of any software which is or includes a copy
 * or modification of this software and in all copies of the supporting
 * documentation for such software.
 * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED
 * WARRANTY.  IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR LUCENT MAKE ANY
 * REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY
 * OF THIS SOFTWARE OR ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE.

and p9fmt is similar (with different authors).

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Lucio De Re]

On Thu, Dec 05, 2002 at 10:32:39AM -0500, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> (*) The actual license for u9fs (in the COPYRIGHT file
> in the archive) is:
>
It strikes me as being very close, at least in intent, to the BSD
licence.  I concur with those who believe that having as few
variations as possible from a small set of fundamental "Open Source"
licences is good for the community in general and bad for lawyers,
so in my opinion this particular licence should explicitly model
itself on the BSD one.

Just an opinion, although I think it is advice I'd like to see
followed.

++L

PS: If the code were mine, I'd add the GNU proviso that any derived
works should require disclosure of the source, but there are pros
and cons with that.

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Ronald G. Minnich]

russ, thanks for this. Our plan is to include this server in our v9fs
source tree, and to create an updated v9fs which will talk 9p2000 so that
we can use your server.

It's great to see you folks releasing software this way. Please tell the
folks at Lucent Legal that DOE will make use of your software in its
computing facilities, if that helps with any other license issues.

Thanks again

ron

[9fans] ArXiv: Weaves...

[Jim Choate]

Hi,

I was looking at the arXiv at lanl.gov for interesting things to read and
came across Srinidhi Varadarajan's paper "The Weaves Reconfigurable
Programming Framework". It provides an alternative (middle-of-the-road) to
threads and processes as a computing model.

I'd be interested in discussing it with anyone who has used it
(especially if they were interested in porting to Plan 9). My motivation
is to find a mechanism to allow non-Plan 9 OS'es to participate in the
process cloud. I'm interested in any input regarding operational issues,
scaling, and OS transparency.

Please contact me directly if interested in discussing it.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Geoff Collyer]

I find rules such as this in my pipeto file handy for filtering noise:

upas/filter -h $1 $2 \
 '(^|\n)From:.*[^a-z]turkey@gobblers\.r\.us($|[>, ])' /dev/null \
[...]

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Sam]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: TEXT/PLAIN, Size: 1574 bytes --]

In the event you don't already have one you like ...

1.2w /lib/face/48x48x4/j/j.1
!echo 'ssz.com/unknown j/j.1' >> /lib/face/48x48x4/.dict

I knew I'ld be able to contribute to the community somehow.

Sam

>
> On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Russ Cox wrote:
>
> > > It strikes me as being very close, at least in intent, to the BSD
> > > licence.  I concur with those who believe that having as few
> > > variations as possible from a small set of fundamental "Open Source"
> > > licences is good for the community in general and bad for lawyers,
> > > so in my opinion this particular licence should explicitly model
> > > itself on the BSD one.
> >
> > The point of this was NOT to reopen haggling over licensing.
> > Bell Labs has been using that boilerplate since before the term
> > "open source" existed.  It's not like the wording was written from
> > scratch yesterday.
> >
> > Please please PLEASE don't continue this thread.  We'll all just
> > have filled mailboxes and nothing useful to show for it.
>
> That's funny since you're the one who opened with a jab...
>
>
>  --
>     ____________________________________________________________________
>
>     We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
>     we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
>                                                   jchoate@open-forge.org
>     Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org
>
>     --------------------------------------------------------------------
>



[-- Attachment #2.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 392 bytes --]

The following attachment had content that we can't
prove to be harmless.  To avoid possible automatic
execution, we changed the content headers.
The original header was:

	Content-Type: APPLICATION/OCTET-STREAM; NAME="j.1"
	Content-Transfer-Encoding: BASE64
	Content-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.30.0212061157280.3978@athena>
	Content-Description:
	Content-Disposition: ATTACHMENT; FILENAME="j.1"

[-- Attachment #2.2: j.1.suspect --]
[-- Type: application/octet-stream, Size: 2051 bytes --]

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Jim Choate]

On Thu, 5 Dec 2002, Russ Cox wrote:

> > It strikes me as being very close, at least in intent, to the BSD
> > licence.  I concur with those who believe that having as few
> > variations as possible from a small set of fundamental "Open Source"
> > licences is good for the community in general and bad for lawyers,
> > so in my opinion this particular licence should explicitly model
> > itself on the BSD one.
>
> The point of this was NOT to reopen haggling over licensing.
> Bell Labs has been using that boilerplate since before the term
> "open source" existed.  It's not like the wording was written from
> scratch yesterday.
>
> Please please PLEASE don't continue this thread.  We'll all just
> have filled mailboxes and nothing useful to show for it.

That's funny since you're the one who opened with a jab...


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    We don't see things as they are,                      ravage@ssz.com
    we see them as we are.                                   www.ssz.com
                                                  jchoate@open-forge.org
    Anais Nin                                         www.open-forge.org

    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[ozan s. yigit]

so sorry, last message was supposed to go to russ, not the list.

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[ozan s. yigit]

thanks for releasing the u9fs server. appreciated.
on another topic: anything new happening with tra? sorry i have
not been able to supply logs to you as promised, but many system
changes at home; should be able to do better in the next little
while.

cheers...	oz

Re: [9fans] u9fs re-release

[Russ Cox]

> It strikes me as being very close, at least in intent, to the BSD
> licence.  I concur with those who believe that having as few
> variations as possible from a small set of fundamental "Open Source"
> licences is good for the community in general and bad for lawyers,
> so in my opinion this particular licence should explicitly model
> itself on the BSD one.

The point of this was NOT to reopen haggling over licensing.
Bell Labs has been using that boilerplate since before the term
"open source" existed.  It's not like the wording was written from
scratch yesterday.

Please please PLEASE don't continue this thread.  We'll all just
have filled mailboxes and nothing useful to show for it.

Russ