Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[okamoto]

I was much surprised to read those posts today, and have read the new
License at http://plan9.bell-labs.com.   Yes, it's true...

I'm now rewriting Yoshitatsu's planv, which uses many codes from acme,
and I must stop my subject now.   It's mostly wasted my time...

The line

>of, or in conjunction with, any other operating system
>	or application.
              ^^^^^^^^^

made me into trouble.

Kenji

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Skip Tavakkolian]

What does "application" mean in this context?  I am working on a
service that has an "application" that runs on Plan9 interacting with other
"applications" that run on Win/OSX/Linux.  Does this mean I have to
have a commercial deal in place with Lucent before I can go any
further, even if stock Plan9 is used?  What if the "applications"
were using 9P?

It seems to me (I sincerely hope) that this was ONLY and specifically
added for Factotum and Secstore; it obviously has implication all over
the place.

>> 	No right is granted to use, reproduce, modify, execute,
>> 	display, perform, distribute or sublicense the Original
>> 	Software or any modules or portions thereof as a part
>> 	of, or in conjunction with, any other operating system
>> 	or application.
>
> This looks disturbingly like the next step in the continuous attempts by
> Lucent to kill Plan 9 any way they can :-(

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Jack Johnson]

Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> It seems to me (I sincerely hope) that this was ONLY and specifically
> added for Factotum and Secstore; it obviously has implication all over
> the place.
>>>	No right is granted to use, reproduce, modify, execute,
>>>	display, perform, distribute or sublicense the Original
>>>	Software or any modules or portions thereof as a part
>>>	of, or in conjunction with, any other operating system
>>>	or application.

If I'm reading this correctly (though out of context, of course), it
also means that we're not only no longer able to use drawterm, but we're
also unable to use it with VMWare (or VNC from anything other than Plan 9).

I'm also guessing that we're not allowed to use the mail or DNS servers
to support other OSes, which poses a huge problem.  Hell, I accessed the
wiki this afternoon using Mozilla; I think that violates the license at
least four times (DNS and httpd with other OS and other application).
When will the lawyers call?

-Jack

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Skip Tavakkolian]

My biggest problem is that, for a change as critical as this, it was
done in a rather stealthy way.  When you do the fresh download you
have to read and agree to the license.  I don't know of any such setup
with replica/pull.

How many more changes like this are expected?

>> Presumably the sources prior to August 20 can still be redistributed
>> under the older license.  So perhaps the Plan 9 community needs to
>> set up a repository independent of Lucent, and go forward from there,
>> accepting no further changes developed by Lucent?
>
> Hangar 18 is already there...when we set ourselves up in 2000 this was
> one of the issues that was driving the group, the believe that Lucent
> would -not- be a good 'parent'.
>
> http://open-forge.org

[9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Micah Stetson]

I hate to raise the spectre of license wars again, but I really
must ask about this.

I just updated my desktop machine from sources and noticed that
the LICENSE file was changed.  Diffing against the version on
an ISO image I had lying around, I noticed something very
disturbing:

	No right is granted to use, reproduce, modify, execute,
	display, perform, distribute or sublicense the Original
	Software or any modules or portions thereof as a part
	of, or in conjunction with, any other operating system
	or application.

Doesn't this disallow the incorporation of any Plan 9 code into
any other program/system?  Wouldn't this prevent things like the
port of factotum to unix (with integration into the system) that
has been talked about on 9fans this last week?

Also I noticed a lot of phrases like this:

	as [part of] an operating system substantially similar to
	functioning Plan 9 software

in the places talking about allowed modification and
redistribution.  Looks like this bars any major changes to the
system.

So if the first clause above disallows reuse of the code in other
products and the other phrase I quoted disallows major changes to
the system.  Does this mean that all we are allowed to do is fix
bugs and add minor features?  Must all major innovation come from
the Labs?  I don't for an instant imagine that anything of the
sort is the intent of those who work on Plan 9 within Lucent, but
what are we who are outside to do?

Also, the last line of the license file says still says that it's
version 1.1 of the license modified on 09/20/00.  This cant' be
right as the line is identical on the version I have without the
above changes.

Hoping I'm reading it all wrong,

Micah

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Ronald G Minnich]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Micah Stetson wrote:

> 	No right is granted to use, reproduce, modify, execute,
> 	display, perform, distribute or sublicense the Original
> 	Software or any modules or portions thereof as a part
> 	of, or in conjunction with, any other operating system
> 	or application.

This looks disturbingly like the next step in the continuous attempts by
Lucent to kill Plan 9 any way they can :-(

You know, as hard as we are working here at LANL to get this stuff
noticed, I sometimes feel Lucent is working just as hard to make it
impossible for DOE or other parts of the USG to ever use it. This is very
discouraging.

I've talked this system up at various "high level" (i.e.  non-technical)
DOE-sponsored meetings.  We're actually at the point where the name "Plan
9" appears on OTHER people's slides about "possible future OS directions
for DOE". But the earlier license was enough of a problem, and this new
clause might be enough to take Plan 9 off the table. Blast.

Bell Labs guys, is there any hope of fixing this? Or are we screwed?

ron

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Mike Haertel]

Presumably the sources prior to August 20 can still be redistributed
under the older license.  So perhaps the Plan 9 community needs to
set up a repository independent of Lucent, and go forward from there,
accepting no further changes developed by Lucent?

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Jim Choate]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Mike Haertel wrote:

> Presumably the sources prior to August 20 can still be redistributed
> under the older license.  So perhaps the Plan 9 community needs to
> set up a repository independent of Lucent, and go forward from there,
> accepting no further changes developed by Lucent?

Hangar 18 is already there...when we set ourselves up in 2000 this was
one of the issues that was driving the group, the believe that Lucent
would -not- be a good 'parent'.

http://open-forge.org



 --
    ____________________________________________________________________

    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] Aug 20 license modification

[Ronald G Minnich]

On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Mike Haertel wrote:

> Presumably the sources prior to August 20 can still be redistributed
> under the older license.  So perhaps the Plan 9 community needs to
> set up a repository independent of Lucent, and go forward from there,
> accepting no further changes developed by Lucent?


I have had it explained to me by BTL guys that even that license has
trouble in it for companies.

It's a shame.

ron

Re: [9fans] Aug 20 license modification

[Eric Dorman]

Ronald G Minnich wrote:

>On Sat, 7 Sep 2002, Mike Haertel wrote:
>
>
>
>>Presumably the sources prior to August 20 can still be redistributed
>>under the older license.  So perhaps the Plan 9 community needs to
>>set up a repository independent of Lucent, and go forward from there,
>>accepting no further changes developed by Lucent?
>>
>>
>
>
>I have had it explained to me by BTL guys that even that license has
>trouble in it for companies.
>
>It's a shame.
>
>ron
>
>
>
>
To say nothing of the trouble that would result if used in a classified
project.

Eric Dorman
edorman@san.rr.com
dormane@spawar.navy.mil