From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.org/gmane.linux.lib.musl.general/1693 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Rich Felker Newsgroups: gmane.linux.lib.musl.general Subject: Re: [Vision for new platform] syslog, sed, cron Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 08:31:45 -0400 Message-ID: <20120823123145.GN27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> References: <20120822185359.GF27715@brightrain.aerifal.cx> <87mx1mbvs1.fsf@gmail.com> <87ipcabsfg.fsf@gmail.com> <20120823173334.6d9cc183@sibserver.ru> <20120823122302.GA8888@intma.in> Reply-To: musl@lists.openwall.com NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1345725020 25919 80.91.229.3 (23 Aug 2012 12:30:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 23 Aug 2012 12:30:20 +0000 (UTC) To: musl@lists.openwall.com Original-X-From: musl-return-1694-gllmg-musl=m.gmane.org@lists.openwall.com Thu Aug 23 14:30:20 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org Original-Received: from mother.openwall.net ([195.42.179.200]) by plane.gmane.org with smtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1T4WYA-0007Nv-8B for gllmg-musl@plane.gmane.org; Thu, 23 Aug 2012 14:30:14 +0200 Original-Received: (qmail 18062 invoked by uid 550); 23 Aug 2012 12:30:12 -0000 Mailing-List: contact musl-help@lists.openwall.com; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Original-Received: (qmail 18051 invoked from network); 23 Aug 2012 12:30:12 -0000 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20120823122302.GA8888@intma.in> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.linux.lib.musl.general:1693 Archived-At: On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 08:23:02AM -0400, Kurt H Maier wrote: > On Thu, Aug 23, 2012 at 05:33:34PM +0800, orc wrote: > > (Why anyone who uses Plan9 needs gnu tools?) > > To build python, of course. How else can we access mercurial? > > Rich, how many licenses will this platform require? Good question. Again, the intent is not to impose policy unnecessarily, so in cases where there are two or more implementations of a standard utility that meet the common extension needs of applications, any of them can be used at the system integrator or distributor's discression. This mostly covers the standard utilities but maybe not all the higher-level stuff where there may only be one implementation of the software needed. I suspect some users may prefer to have a fully BSD/MIT/permissive userspace, for either ideological or misguided corporate policy reasons. While misguided, at least the latter have something to do with deployment and adoption, so it would be nice to have a complete functional system with all the components we mentioned originally under a permissive license, but I don't think having some significant components under a different free license, at least initially, is a show-stopping problem. Platform should excel on technical merits like size, power consumption, etc. and usability merits like interface, not on holier-than-thou attitudes about licenses... Rich