From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu From: "T. Kurt Bond" Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit References: , Subject: Re: [9fans] one reason ideas from Plan 9 didn't catch on Date: Mon, 12 Nov 2001 10:42:25 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 1f041ea0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 ravage@ssz.com (Jim Choate) wrote in message news:... > On Fri, 9 Nov 2001, T. Kurt Bond wrote: > > > > You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a > > > copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and > > > related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by > > > You if used for any purpose. I'm not sure how your article ended up with double levels of quoting for the section from my article, since as far as I can see you were directly replying to my article. > Which is effectively different from Open Source results, how again? I was pointing out that since Stallman originally wrote his article about the problems he saw with the Plan 9 license that the Plan 9 license had *changed* slightly, eliminating *that* problem and leaving the others. As for bitching, *I* wasn't. The Plan 9 license holders can release (or not) Plan 9 under any license they want, and I appreciate the fact that they choose to release it under a license that lets me run the executables and read the source code. On the other hand, I don't find it surprising that the GNU Project is unwilling to use Plan 9 under the condition that they give up their right to sue the license holders of Plan 9 if those license holders begin using and distributing GNU software in ways that the GNU software's licenses prohibit. So the GNU Project can't use Plan 9, and other people can. I don't see that as a serious problem. An unfortunate minor accident of history, perhaps, but not a serious problem. -- T. Kurt Bond, tkb@tkb.mpl.com