Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Skip Tavakkolian]

>> What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
>> let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
>> any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
>> hand is profit.
>
> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.

David, I think you should consider the source.  I, like most here, am grateful.

It seems to me counterproductive to keep looking for flaws in the
license when the intent has been clearly stated over and over again
that Lucent/Bell Labs wants Plan9 to be opensource.  It is always
about the intent.

Re: [9fans] The new ridiculous license

[Lucio De Re]

On Thu, Jun 19, 2003 at 01:51:47PM -0400, David Presotto wrote:
>
> Nevertheless, I can see why OpenBSD would be afraid of it.
> It is true that if OpenBSD agreed to indemnify us, they
> could rerelease under their own license so the buck stops
> there, so to speak.  However, that leaves OpenBSD obligated
> in a new way and I could see why they wouldn't like it,
> especially since they too are getting no revenue from the code.
>
It is tempting to think of the FSF as providing an indemnifying
role, as they are funded, but (a) they may not have deep enough
pockets and (b) they may be less than suitable from the community's
point of view.

Still, it may be worth considering.  Founding a Plan 9 "open source"
foundation would be somewhat more difficult.

++L

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Lucio De Re wrote:

> It is tempting to think of the FSF as providing an indemnifying
> role,

Don't see why. The FSF does -nothing- do protect a user against damage or
loss. In -fact- the GPL has a section that -specifically- states that all
damages and such are the responsibility of the user.

What the FSF does do is provide technology and a 'political discussion' to
raise interest in that technology. As to what one may use that technology
for and the chances that are taken in that effort are up to the end user,
as they should be.

> Still, it may be worth considering.  Founding a Plan 9 "open source"
> foundation would be somewhat more difficult.

Why? Some people, motivation, & money. In a very real way Hangar 18 is a
'open source foundation' with the express intent of fostering the greater
use of Plan 9, Inferno, & Open Source technology in general in
-distributed general purpose- computing.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Lucio De Re]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 09:18:16AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Lucio De Re wrote:
>
> > It is tempting to think of the FSF as providing an indemnifying
> > role,
>
> Don't see why. The FSF does -nothing- do protect a user against damage or
> loss. In -fact- the GPL has a section that -specifically- states that all
> damages and such are the responsibility of the user.
>
Maybe I was too obscure.  My point is that it's Lucent that needs
"protecting" because they are an easy target, as mentioned here.
The idea would be to "donate" the code to a foundation with the
certainty that the donor would no longer be held responsible for
any further use of the code whatsoever.  Nothing about protecting
the user, precisely.

> > Still, it may be worth considering.  Founding a Plan 9 "open source"
> > foundation would be somewhat more difficult.
>
> Why? Some people, motivation, & money. In a very real way Hangar 18 is a
> 'open source foundation' with the express intent of fostering the greater
> use of Plan 9, Inferno, & Open Source technology in general in
> -distributed general purpose- computing.
>
Show me the beef, mate!  You've farted about this aplenty, but what
have you got to show for it?

++L

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Lucio De Re wrote:

> Maybe I was too obscure.  My point is that it's Lucent that needs
> "protecting" because they are an easy target, as mentioned here.

Why is Lucent an easy target if their license is strong in the warranty
and expectations department backed up by law?

> The idea would be to "donate" the code to a foundation with the
> certainty that the donor would no longer be held responsible for
> any further use of the code whatsoever.  Nothing about protecting
> the user, precisely.

Ok, not 'obscure' but rather 'obfuscatory' or 'byzantine' perhaps. Over
complicated, instead of dealing with the issue it shifts it to another
third party. Same sort of logical error as 'panspermia' as the answer to
'where did life come from'.

If the courts recognize the concept of 'no warranty' and the general GPL
fair use intent then there is nothing to worry about. The major unknown
factor in this argument is that the GPL has never been tested in court.

The major unknown with business is the 'what if' and until the GPL has
been sullied in the mud a few times it will always be a skittish herd.

Lucent is motivated by basic self preservation, unfortunately they find
themselves (like many business) stuck at the fork in the road. Unsure of
which branch to take. The failure of modern relativism/pragmatism, no
underlying principles deeper than 'it works'.

That branch is a opportunity for new enterprises and efforts.

> Show me the beef, mate!  You've farted about this aplenty, but what
> have you got to show for it?

Tit for tat, mate.

When would you like to connect your cluster to the H18 cluster? Rob and I
happen to be doing a rebuild this afternoon. How many processors? What
sort of 'user access' policy do you intend to apply? What sort of feed do
you have (it needs to be 24/365 w/ at least one dedicated IP and the
ability to operate servers)? What sort of filesystem resources? Any Linux,
BSD, MS, Mac, etc. machines included?

We're in particular looking for another node to support IRC as well as act
as a secondary subscription point for the H18 mailing list (we're going to
use the distributed mailing list system like the Cypherpunks use).

I assume of course that you have your wireless AP ready to go? Specs and
policies please? What country/state/city are you in? What's your
URL/homepage for the members list?

Any particular special projects or interests that you'd like to share?

The offer is open to any of the rest of you folks.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Lucio De Re]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:44:09AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> Why is Lucent an easy target if their license is strong in the warranty
> and expectations department backed up by law?
>
Because litigation does not have to have its foundations in "right".
Your very approach to this mailing list is an example of the type of
behaviour Lucent is understandably concerned with.

> Lucent is motivated by basic self preservation, unfortunately they find
> themselves (like many business) stuck at the fork in the road. Unsure of
> which branch to take. The failure of modern relativism/pragmatism, no
> underlying principles deeper than 'it works'.
>
You forget that Lucent don't have to give anything away.  It is left
to the Plan 9 community (in a large sense) to justify a trust that
has, as you point out, never been tested.

> That branch is a opportunity for new enterprises and efforts.
>
But it still does not provide Lucent with the incentive to give up
something and risk being nailed to the cross in return.  That bit of
generosity has long gone out of fashion, if it ever was in fashion.

> When would you like to connect your cluster to the H18 cluster? Rob and I
> happen to be doing a rebuild this afternoon. How many processors? What
> sort of 'user access' policy do you intend to apply? What sort of feed do
> you have (it needs to be 24/365 w/ at least one dedicated IP and the
> ability to operate servers)? What sort of filesystem resources? Any Linux,
> BSD, MS, Mac, etc. machines included?
>
I'm at the far end of a 9600 bps conneciton to the Internet, with
NAT and packet filtering in five directions at our firewall.  All this
at the discretion and thanks to the generosity of my main client.  Are
you still interested in my 8-node network?

> We're in particular looking for another node to support IRC as well as act
> as a secondary subscription point for the H18 mailing list (we're going to
> use the distributed mailing list system like the Cypherpunks use).
>
Because I certainly am not :-)

> I assume of course that you have your wireless AP ready to go? Specs and
> policies please? What country/state/city are you in? What's your
> URL/homepage for the members list?
>
 From South Africa?  Moonbounce, perhaps?

> Any particular special projects or interests that you'd like to share?
>
Yes, combining CVS and Fossil into something both the Plan 9 "dump"
users and my benefactors in the NetBSD camp can make use of.

> The offer is open to any of the rest of you folks.
>
Pity you have such a narrow conception of the reality beyond the walls
of your hangar.

++L

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Lucio De Re wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 11:44:09AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > Why is Lucent an easy target if their license is strong in the warranty
> > and expectations department backed up by law?
> >
> Because litigation does not have to have its foundations in "right".

??? It's basic contract law, and any contract grants the participants
rights as well as obligations.

> You forget that Lucent don't have to give anything away.

I -never- forget that.

> It is left to the Plan 9 community (in a large sense) to justify a trust
> that has, as you point out, never been tested.

??? I have -no- responsibility to justify anything, especially any sort of
'trust'. I have a contract with Lucent that is instantiated through the
license. Nothing more, nothing less. If Lucent wants something from me
outside of the license, they should have put it in the license.

The question from Lucent, any business, is 'what's in it for me?'. Ask
yourself this (I don't care to hear your answers thank you very much);

If Lucent had kept Plan 9 closed source how would it have
(probably/likely) grown?

What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
hand is profit.

Get real.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Stephen Wynne]

Jim Choate wrote:

 > What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
 > let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
 > any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
 > hand is profit.

I'd like to dispute the idea that trust is always absent from
corporate relationships with the wider world, both in terms of civic
and professional circles.

I can't speak for Lucent, since I know little about its corporate
culture, but suffice it to say that companies have complex motivations
when it comes to their relationships to the wider world. Civic,
professional, and global community environments exist in which
companies must survive. They require willing professionals who can
demonstrate commitment and loyalty during their terms of
employment. Companies require supportive local communities for things
such as roads, electricity, and fire protection for their grounds. And
they also need a sense of public recognition from customers and
competitors.

I could go on about company community obligations, but to say that
corporations only think about the immediate profits they can gain is
simplistic. Of course they usually think about profits above other
considerations. But all the companies I've known have had strong
contingents of volunteerism, as well as charity activities among the
employees, often encouraged by upper management. And each has
contributed to a wider group of professionals, customers, and
competitors through open source offerings, conference participation,
and technical education grants.

In part because companies are comprised of many individuals, each
company has an opportunity to demonstrate some degree of altruism.
Moreover, any perceived generosity on the part of a company can be
seen as positive public relations. A good veteran marketeer will tell
you that the best publicity isn't for sale. Open source gifts to the
wider world offer a variety of ways for companies to demonstrate
altruism and gain kudos from customers and competitors in often
unmeasurable ways. An open source offering can also help to secure
market share for a product that depends on the open source package.

With its Plan 9 license, Lucent is doing the work of a for-profit
corporation as well as demonstrating its membership in a larger
community of competitors that all seek to further the state of the art
through cooperation.  And one could even call that selfish, because at
some point in an organization's growth, market and innovative
influence is critical for a company's future success.

Every corporation I've ever joined was more than the sum of its parts.
 From executives down to hourly employees, people with whom I've worked
have had their own interests in engaging with their communities,
whether it were volunteering, charity donations, or technical
mentoring and even open source donations. I think it's very negative
to say that trust wasn't a part of these relationships, or that trust
wasn't a part of their companies' relationships with their
communities.  There has been a lot of trust, and when the taxes are
paid and the money has been spent, looking back on trust is a great
experience. And in this day of fluctuating stock prices, technical
employees and their organizations might be more interested in
community than ever.

The glass is either half empty, or half full, depending on how you
see it. I prefer to see it as somewhat almost full, and able to
satisfy most of the thirst.

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Stephen Wynne wrote:

> Jim Choate wrote:
>
>  > What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
>  > let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
>  > any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
>  > hand is profit.
>
> I'd like to dispute the idea that trust is always absent from
> corporate relationships with the wider world, both in terms of civic
> and professional circles.

There are two types of 'trust', a obligation of performance as compared to
a belief in future behavior.

You are comparing apples and oranges.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[David Presotto]

> What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
> let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
> any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
> hand is profit.

We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
not likely ever to happen again.

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[nehal]

damn your companies for wanting to make a profit.
and damn you  guys for wanting to get paid with
corporate blood money. and damn your mortgages. and damn
your insurance.

nehal


>
> > What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
> > let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
> > any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
> > hand is profit.
>
> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.
>

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[ron minnich]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Presotto wrote:

> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.


well from out here we are very grateful, for what that is worth.

I think Plan 9 has a big role in our future work, this new license is the
ticket for me.

I regret not buying all the Lucent guys at Usenix a beer last week.

I'm wondering: how many of the folks who hate this license run PowerPoint?
If you do, you're already far more obligated than by this license.

ron

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Sam]

>
> well from out here we are very grateful, for what that is worth.
>

Hear, hear.  Given that Lucent spent several years of
R&D money so our well-respected scientists could develop
this technology I find the current license quite acceptable.
It may not go so far as to please the zero-software-ownership
religious zealots, but it certainly makes the software usable,
extendible, and even distributable for many.

Thanks to Presotto, et al for spending the effort to see this
accomplished.

Sam

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, Sam wrote:

> Hear, hear.  Given that Lucent spent several years of
> R&D money so our well-respected scientists could develop
> this technology I find the current license quite acceptable.

'acceptable' is not 'needs no improvement.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Steve Arons]

Is there anyone on this list who has read the papers and studied the
sources and learned nothing?

If you have learned something from the ideas and design, why not say
thank you to the people who did the work and fought to make it available?

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[northern snowfall]

> Is there anyone on this list who has read the papers and studied the
> sources and learned nothing?
>
> If you have learned something from the ideas and design, why not say
> thank you to the people who did the work and fought to make it available?


:-D
Thanks, y'all!

Don

http://www.7f.no-ip.com/~north_


>

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jack Johnson]

Steve Arons wrote:
> Is there anyone on this list who has read the papers and studied the
> sources and learned nothing?

I'm thick.

-J

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Scott Schwartz]

Ron writes:
> well from out here we are very grateful, for what that is worth.

Hear hear!

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[bwc]

I want to also thank the Plan 9 team for the obviously hard work to
get Plan 9 released.  Thirteen years ago it was impossible to get anything
of substance out of the Labs.  It seemed to me that any work I would do
there wouldn't be useful to anyone on the outside.  The Plan 9 work represents
16 or 17 years of hard innovation and work by a lot of people and represents
a larger body of advancements possibly than the original Unix work.  Its
usefulness and impact has already been felt in the Unix world with some
of its innovations finding their way into lots of kernels.

I don't want amature lawyers and members of a license based religious sect
making the hard efforts of the Plan 9 crew to get the work of a significant
part of their life out into the world in a form that can be directly used
for the betterment of mankind.  They have been successful in getting
use a license that allows their work to be used directly in new products.
I, and others, are deeply greatful.

  Brantley Coile

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003 bwc@coraid.com wrote:

> I want to also thank the Plan 9 team for the obviously hard work to
> get Plan 9 released.  Thirteen years ago it was impossible to get anything
> of substance out of the Labs.

Bull, they would have sold you V2 for $300 a copy and a 'no commercial
apps' license.

> I don't want amature lawyers and members of a license based religious sect
> making the hard efforts of the Plan 9 crew to get the work of a significant
> part of their life out into the world in a form that can be directly used
> for the betterment of mankind.

What a contradictory statement, and you did it with a straight face too.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jason Gurtz]

David Presotto wrote:

> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.

Here's from another greatful person...  Sorry you have to put up with
this stuff.

~Jason

--

[9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Fri, 20 Jun 2003, David Presotto wrote:

> > What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
> > let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
> > any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
> > hand is profit.
>
> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.

Feeling a tad monopolar today are we...

First, the claim is that as a user of Plan 9 I have a 'trust' outside of
the license that I am -obliged- to fill. Malarky. The relationship between
Lucent and a user of Plan 9 is that of parties in a contract. The only
issue at hand is the contract itself and whether either/both parties feel
the contract has been fulfilled.

Why can't Lucent just release Plan 9 under a GPL? Because they fear loss
of a value. This is natural, neither good or bad in and of itself. There
is a parallel issue of liability and warranty. They believe they are
acting in -their- own best interests. That is -not- synonymous or
otherwise equatable to the best interests of the users. And neither one of
those are synonymous with the best interest of the market they are
components of.

On one hand they understand the potential, Plan 9 itself stands an
example. On the other they are faced with the reservation of the unknown.
The license is the cannon of their 'best guess' at their 'best interest'.

Good or bad, that must speak for itself.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jon Snader]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:46:21PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
>
> Feeling a tad monopolar today are we...
>

Oh for goodness sake, enough already.  Lucent and the folks at the
Labs have given us a remarkable gift, asking only that we let this
good deed go unpunished.  All you seem able to do to show your
gratitude is complain about the color of the ribbon.  Didn't your
mother teach you anything about being gracious?

jcs

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Tom Glinos]

>Oh for goodness sake, enough already.  Lucent and the folks at the
>Labs have given us a remarkable gift, asking only that we let this
>good deed go unpunished.  All you seem able to do to show your
>gratitude is complain about the color of the ribbon.  Didn't your
>mother teach you anything about being gracious?

Hear Hear!

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Markus Friedl]

On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:46:21PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> Why can't Lucent just release Plan 9 under a GPL?

because the GPL would not help when trying to replace gcc....

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Lucio De Re]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:16:52AM +0200, Markus Friedl wrote:
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:46:21PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > Why can't Lucent just release Plan 9 under a GPL?
>
> because the GPL would not help when trying to replace gcc....

But 2c doesn't do C++, either.  So GCC would need to be in the OpenBSD
distribution anyway.  As for using 8c, there doesn't seem to be
anything in the licence prohibiting use for developing an alternative
OS, so is it not possible to develop with the Plan 9 toolkit but
release GCC compliant code?

Or is the cross-development elegance of ?c you're after, which would
allow OpenBSD to catch and maybe even overtake NetBSD?

++L

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 21 Jun 2003, Markus Friedl wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 20, 2003 at 03:46:21PM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> > Why can't Lucent just release Plan 9 under a GPL?
>
> because the GPL would not help when trying to replace gcc....

I find that line of reasoning more than specious.


 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

      We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I
      are going to spend the rest of our lives.

                              Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space"

      ravage@ssz.com                            jchoate@open-forge.org
      www.ssz.com                               www.open-forge.org
    --------------------------------------------------------------------

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Fco.J.Ballesteros]

This was filtered for me by other means, but it got through in one
of your replies.

> > What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
> > let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
> > any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
> > hand is profit.

I'd just like to say one thing to choate:

	if you don't like the system and/or its licence, just dont use it, but
	please, dont bother us. Don't you see everybody else is the list
	is really tired of this?


and two things for the people from the labs:

	thanks a lot for the system.
	thanks a lot for all the time you did expend to get a
	free (open) distribution.

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[D. Brownlee]

David Presotto wrote:

> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.
>

I think that a lot of people lived with the old license.
The new linense seems to be more liberal.
I, for one, am not complaining about the license.

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[a]

// We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
// the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
// not likely ever to happen again.

y'know, it seems people are divided over this new license. some people
are happy as could be, some are happy but look for future improvements,
and some just complain with no end. maybe you guys should come up with
some way for people to express whether or not they find the license to
be acceptable before agreeing to it? you could put radio buttons on the
download page or something. then nobody would be under obligations they
didn't agree to. that sound good?

seriously, let me repeat what others have said: i'm highly apreciative
of all the work, both technical and otherwise, all the labs guys (and,
for that matter, everyone else) has put into this project. plan 9
remains such an exciting project only thanks to your efforts. while
some people have expressed some concerns (some even doing so in a
reasonable manner, i think), everything we've seen from you guys
represents progress in one form or another. i just keep getting more
excited about things, and the new license (while a minor concern in my
mind, for my purposes) just helps that along.

so thanks.
ア

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Christopher Nielsen]

Can we just let this thread die, please? Talk about beating
a dead horse...

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 11:10:28PM -0400, a@9srv.net wrote:
> // We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> // the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> // not likely ever to happen again.
>
> y'know, it seems people are divided over this new license. some people
> are happy as could be, some are happy but look for future improvements,
> and some just complain with no end. maybe you guys should come up with
> some way for people to express whether or not they find the license to
> be acceptable before agreeing to it? you could put radio buttons on the
> download page or something. then nobody would be under obligations they
> didn't agree to. that sound good?
>
> seriously, let me repeat what others have said: i'm highly apreciative
> of all the work, both technical and otherwise, all the labs guys (and,
> for that matter, everyone else) has put into this project. plan 9
> remains such an exciting project only thanks to your efforts. while
> some people have expressed some concerns (some even doing so in a
> reasonable manner, i think), everything we've seen from you guys
> represents progress in one form or another. i just keep getting more
> excited about things, and the new license (while a minor concern in my
> mind, for my purposes) just helps that along.
>
> so thanks.

--
Christopher Nielsen
"They who can give up essential liberty for temporary
safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." --Benjamin Franklin

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[northern snowfall]

Christopher Nielsen wrote:

>Can we just let this thread die, please? Talk about beating
>a dead horse...
>
I find that sometimes beating a dead horse can be a good thing.
Especially if it gets real dusty and you need to clean it out.

Don

http://www.7f.no-ip.com/~north_


>

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Jon Snader]

On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:33:44PM -0700, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
> Can we just let this thread die, please? Talk about beating
> a dead horse...
>

Usually I'd be inclined to agree with you, but if I am fed up with
the whining and complaining, I can only imagine how the folks at the
Labs must feel.  Sometimes it's appropriate to say ``thank you'' and
to reaffirm to Lucent and the guys that the overwhelming majority of
us do understand and appreciate the efforts they have made for us.

jcs

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Dan Oglesby]

Jon Snader wrote:

> On Sat, Jun 21, 2003 at 08:33:44PM -0700, Christopher Nielsen wrote:
>
>>Can we just let this thread die, please? Talk about beating
>>a dead horse...
>>
>
>
> Usually I'd be inclined to agree with you, but if I am fed up with
> the whining and complaining, I can only imagine how the folks at the
> Labs must feel.  Sometimes it's appropriate to say ``thank you'' and
> to reaffirm to Lucent and the guys that the overwhelming majority of
> us do understand and appreciate the efforts they have made for us.
>
> jcs
>

I just signed up for this mailing list last week.  I'm currently lurking
a bit to get a feel for how things operate around here.

Plan9 interests me.  I will be installing Plan9 on a machine I am
currently building (finding compatible hardware).

 From someone who is incredibly "green" with regards to this system, I
wish to say "THANK YOU" to the people who have made Plan9 possible.

Too many people fail speak up to offer thanks for the hard work of
others in this day and age.  This is not beating a dead horse, it is
speaking up and making your opinion known.

*crawls back into the shadows*

--Dan

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

David Presotto wrote:
> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.

Oh, come on!  You can't let a never-satisfied malcontent dictate
what your policy should be.  There are many other satisfied
customers.  It's hard to consider somebody who wants a handout
without providing anything in return a customer at all.

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[bs]

David Presotto wrote:
>>What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
>>let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
>>any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
>>hand is profit.
>
>
> We apologize for letting the code out with a license that obligates
> the receiver in any way.  I promise that with comments like this its
> not likely ever to happen again.
One can only satisfy some people all the time, all the people some time...

I for one am happy with this license. It also proves that there is
nothing really free. I am looking forward to a similar license for Inferno.

Optimistically, with these two, a computing revolution might begin (again).

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[matt]

>
> I for one am happy with this license. It also proves that there is
> nothing really free. I am looking forward to a similar license for
> Inferno.
>
> Optimistically, with these two, a computing revolution might begin
> (again).


There is already movement in this direction from Inferno with a new
licensing scheme in the pipeline for the forthcoming 4th edition

http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/4thedoverview.html

http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/4e/licence.html


The best way to help plan9 or inferno is to buy a copy.

Spend some time learning about it and share whatever little nuggets of
brilliance you find with the world. Every line of working source code
that appears is eagerly awaited as we all walk in different directions.

Use the source, Luke.

etc.

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[boyd, rounin]

> Every line of working source code that appears is eagerly
> awaited as we all walk in different directions.

sure, and you can use 'repo' as pointer to 'em if you like:

    http://www.insultant.net/repo

since i got insultant.net re-hosted and more or less setup.

maybe i should add a pointer to the wiki, but i'm not a huge
fan of wiki's.

i'd like to attack the boot from memory stick deal, but i have
a few more pressing issues, like finding a job, donc une
chose � la fois ...

Re: [9fans] Re: The new ridiculous license

[Douglas A. Gwyn]

Jim Choate wrote:
> What we see from Lucent is typical corporate psychology. They're afraid to
> let one iota more go than necessary to make a profit. It's hard to take
> any argument or claim based on 'justify a trust' when the only issue at
> hand is profit.
> Get real.

You should take your own advice and "get real".  It has been quite
evident that Lucent doesn't expect to make a profit from Plan 9 as
such.  But in the real world, potential litigation is an important
concern.  Nobody, corporation or otherwise, should be expected to
do good deeds with the expectation of getting screwed for doing so.