Slashdot Mirror
Plan9 is now Officially Open Source
DrSkwid writes "The OSI have approved the revised license for the plan 9 operating system according to attendees returning from this year's Usenix Bof."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How long until SCO claim that SCO IP was stolen and put into plan9?
There is no god
So, is this operating system from outer space as well?
"We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars." - Oscar Wilde
why is the license HTML file under a directory called "hidden"?
From the screenshots, doesn't look like it has a ton of bells and whistles.
--------
Free your mind.
Ed Wood did this already! Only.. you know.. from outer space.
this year's Usenix Bof
Usenix Bof? Sounds like what happens when a bunch of greasy, miserable nerds decide to play doctor in the server room.
If this OS is out of space, does SCO reside there? And is this OS infected with the SCOvirus to?
of the Misfits when ever i hear about this os...
Simple Plan9.
Sorry, just had to do it.
Latest release notes
Download the source (Warning: requires identification--privacy advocates maybe be excluded here)
This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.
What is Plan 9, anyway? All I could gather from the website before it was slashdotted into oblivion is that their logo is really fucking cute.
It is sooo coool. It is more than just a typical OS. Is is a distributed OS. Really. Not a cluster like you often think about. Before you look at the screen shots and say "boy, that looks crappy", read the design.
Mod parent up! It's important that people can read the information even in slashdotted periods!
dammit.. another operating system to try out.... and only 2 computers.
I write code.
..what the heck is that thingy on the logo?????
Hell, it's ugly.... not as ugly as me, but certainly is some competition;o)))))
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
This is great news for the Open Source community. While Plan9 is often rediculed as being outdated, it no doubt has its share of novel and useful algorithms, which may now be incorporated into more mainstream open source OSes such as Linux and the HURD (yes, it's still around).
Open sourcing OS code has proven to be a good way to keep ailing systems relevant in the current marketplace. It kept BeOS and VMS from dying in obscurity, and even helped BSD limp along for a few more years.
I predict nothing but good things from GNU/Plan9. Hopefully Debian will introduce a Plan9 distro, to go with their Darwin, HURD, and Linux distrii. I still have a few spare boxen lying around that I could use this on.
Boromir, son of Faramir, King of Gondor and Minas Tirith
Well now. This OS will become REAL popular in Germany.
It has a lot of really cool concepts in it, so I am hoping to see it grow. What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux and Unix and some of the "theming" made it over to Plan 9. :)
Un-news
With TRON and now Plan 9 falling into the hands of OSS the move to have the operating systems of computers taken over by old sci-fi movies is happening.
Ah... another slashbot humour cliche is born. *sniff* WE WILL HAVE SCO JOKES FOR YEARS! REJOICE IN THE NETWORK-TV-LIKE LACK OF ORIGINALITY!
Beowulf clusters of those! SCO claims infringement! Hot grits down Natalie Portman's pants!
Is the fact that, while the entire OS was mapped around Dennis Ritchie's involvement, he died halfway through the making of the OS.
Eventually, a bad double - in the form of the CEO's dentist - was brought in to replace Ritchie - the result being that the first half of the Plan9 OS is decent, but the last half is just terrible.
Oh, and it turns out that the CEO is a cross-dressing lunatic, whose obsession with C-grade OSes (like BeOS, NetBSD, NeXT, Apple OS9, OS2 Warp, etc) eventually led to him living out the rest of his life if relative obscurity and poverty. Sad, really... but, it might make a decent movie... nah.
Although the intent does not conflict with the GPL I think the requirment of commercial distributors to defend contributors against certain suits might be a show stopper beacause of how it's written. But IANAL; can someone comment on this?
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
crap. it prevents you from exporting to NORTH KOREA. is also REQUIRES you to legally defend the people you sell/give it to from any lawsuits based on said product..
in summary..
it is not open source, it is a TRAP
After the QNX thread a bit ago, this is probably the best news possible. Plan 9 is a nicely evolved version of UNIX, it is very scaleable, and 'orthogonal' (you can run a new version of the window manager in a window in the old one!).
If there ever was a viable alternative to the monolithic unices then Plan 9 is probably it.
Macro kernels are pretty much like turtles and sharks, very well adapted to living today, but dinosaurs nonetheless. Let's give this one the attention it deserves and see how it stacks up against the 'hurd', time to evolve !
MP3 Search Engine
Anyone with experience with both Plan9 and J2EE care to comment on similarities/differences?
ObSCOComment: System V represented many resources as files. This must be derivitative of SysV. Get the lawyers ready!
CS Professors wrote a book about Plan 9. Ive played with the vmware image. Its some cool stuff - though a bit weird in terms of the UI metaphores - but then agian _everything_ is a file.
Props to my profs Bischof and Schreiner.
/* Lobster Stick To Magnet!*/
My first subject line was 'Cool', but then I changed it. Why? Well, I have been interested in Plan 9 for a long time. I especially like the services-based architecture. In many ways it is a project with an awful lot of potential. But...
Problem 1: What is it good for? Right now Plan 9 has no compelling applications and a dearth of the applications most people use daily. This might be fixed soon as people port things like OpenOffice to it, but don't hold your breath.
Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that. Chances are, any truly compelling features in Plan 9 will soon find their way into Linux and even MS Windows.
Problem 3: Overcoming the installed base. It took Linux nearly ten years to achieve name recognition, and it still is running a distant third on the desktop. What does Plan 9 offer that would make me, or you, want to spend time installing and learning it? Especially considerint Problem 2 and Problem 1.
Problem 4: Wrong direction. In my opinion the real important projects right now are ones that are removing the distinctions between OSs. Cross platform tools like Python, Chandler, Mono and Mozilla. Using standards-based DHTML as the UI. Why add another platform to the mix when the real goal is to become platform agnostic?
It all sums up to the same issues that squeak smalltalk has: Everything about it is great, but no-one uses it for anything real.
Of course all these problems I describe are based on my opinions, needs and preferences. Your mileage may vary. But I be most people's won't...
- -
Are you an SF Fan? Are you a Tru-Fan?
You don't think Dennis Ritchie could write an OS without getting ideas from SCO, do you? :)
SCO's always been a sad joke! I mean, come on, Microsoft XENIX for chrissakes!
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
i wonder if this new revised license has fixed any of those problems?
here is the statement from RMS.
When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released as "open source", I wondered whether it might be free software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.)
I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as "open source", they are altering the meaning of that term and thus spreading confusion. (The term "open source" is widely misunderstood; see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/philosophy/free-software-fo r-freedom.html
Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. Some provisions restrict the Plan 9 software so that it is clearly non-free; others are just extremely obnoxious.
First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.
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.
This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right.
and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.
This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.
Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
This seems to say that when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.
1. The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor and/or another Contributor.
This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9 code.
You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software or any modifications to it, You are responsible for compliance with the United States Export Administration Regulations and hereby indemnify the Original Contributor and all other Contributors for any liability incurred as a result.
It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US export control regulations. Laws being what they are, these regulations apply in certain situations regardless of whether they are mentioned in a license; however, requiring them as a license condition can extend their reach to people and activities outside the US government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wro
so you only need 1 PC
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
Was the Plan9 license ever changed? I know for a while the FSF had a page listing the reasons why they don't consider Plan 9 a "free" OS regardless of the openess of it's source (blah blah, difference between open and free, blah blah, speech, blah blah, gratis).
...so basically I'm too lazy to use the internet to answer my questions... please find answers for me slashdot!
I think it'd be really great if Plan9 were released under a more "free" license.
The reasons aren't obvious. I've seen this myth before, notably from Microsoft employees. The idea that you can be "infected" by simply looking at GPLd code is nonsense. The GPL explicitly covers only derived works of the code. If you looked at a GPLd algorithm and reimplemented it, somebody would have a hell of a time arguing in court that it was "derived". This is doubly the case for the vast majority of GPLd code, which is written by people who don't have huge piles of cash and who probably have a disdain for the legal system as well.
The idea that some random geek, or even a big company, is going to sue you on a legal platform as wobbly as "judge, he looked at it, so the rest of his work is clearly based on ours" is somewhere slightly above absolute zero and in any case applies just as equally to proprietary code, as the case of SCO shows.
Ironically, proprietary code is generally far more "infectious". I work on Wine - if I were to have seen the Windows code, I would be immediately banned from working on it, indeed, probably I'd be banned from working on most GPLd code. The EULA for Windows is extremely vague about such things, and Microsoft have armies of lawyers and it's quite feasable for them to sue me or others on a virtually non-existant legal basis. The reverse is not true.
I see that this post has been marked as a troll. I'm not sure it was, but this FUD should not be propogated any further regardless.
bloodninja: Baby, I been havin a tough night so treat me nice aight?
BritneySpears14: Aight.
bloodninja: Slip out of those pants baby, yeah.
BritneySpears14: I slip out of my pants, just for you, bloodninja.
bloodninja: Oh yeah, aight. Aight, I put on my robe and wizard hat.
BritneySpears14: Oh, I like to play dress up.
bloodninja: Me too baby.
BritneySpears14: I kiss you softly on your chest.
bloodninja: I cast Lvl. 3 Eroticism. You turn into a real beautiful woman.
BritneySpears14: Hey...
bloodninja: I meditate to regain my mana, before casting Lvl. 8 chicken of the Infinite.
BritneySpears14: Funny I still don't see it.
bloodninja: I spend my mana reserves to cast Mighty F*ck of the Beyondness.
BritneySpears14: You are the worst cyber partner ever. This is ridiculous.
bloodninja: Don't f*ck with me bitch, I'm the mightiest sorcerer of the lands.
bloodninja: I steal yo soul and cast Lightning Lvl. 1,000,000 Your body explodes into a fine bloody mist, because you are only a Lvl. 2 Druid.
BritneySpears14: Don't ever message me again you piece of ****.
bloodninja: Robots are trying to drill my brain but my lightning shield inflicts DOA attack, leaving the robots as flaming piles of metal.
bloodninja: King Arthur congratulates me for destroying Dr. Robotnik's evil army of Robot Socialist Republics. The cold war ends. Reagan steals my accomplishments and makes like it was cause of him.
bloodninja: You still there baby? I think it's getting hard now.
bloodninja: Baby?
-------------------
bloodninja: Ok baby, we got to hurry, I don't know how long I can keep it ready for you.
j_gurli3: thats ok. ok i'm a japanese schoolgirl, what r u.
bloodninja: A Rhinocerus. Well, hung like one, thats for sure.
j_gurli3: haha, ok lets go.
j_gurli3: i put my hand through ur hair, and kiss u on the neck.
bloodninja: I stomp the ground, and snort, to alert you that you are in my breeding territory.
j_gurli3: haha, ok, u know that turns me on.
j_gurli3: i start unbuttoning ur shirt.
bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't wear shirts.
j_gurli3: No, ur not really a Rhinocerus silly, it's just part of the game.
bloodninja: Rhinoceruses don't play games. They f*cking charge your @$$.
j_gurli3: stop, cmon be serious.
bloodninja: It doesn't get any more serious than a Rhinocerus about to charge your @$$.
bloodninja: I stomp my feet, the dust stirs around my tough skinned feet.
j_gurli3: thats it.
bloodninja: Nostrils flaring, I lower my head. My horn, like some phallic symbol of my potent virility, is the last thing you see as skulls collide and mine remains the victor. You are now a bloody red ragdoll suspended in the air on my mighty horn.
bloodninja: Goddam am I hard now.
--------------
BritneySpears14: Ok, are you ready?
eminemBNJA: Aight, yeah I'm ready.
BritneySpears14: I like your music Em... Tee hee.
eminemBNJA: huh huh, yeah, I make it for the ladies.
BritneySpears14: Mmm, we like it a lot. Let me show you.
BritneySpears14: I take off your pants, slowly, and massage your muscular physique.
eminemBNJA: Oh I like that Baby. I put on my robe and wizard hat.
BritneySpears14: What the f*ck, I told you not to message me again.
eminemBNJA: Oh ****
BritneySpears14: I swear if you do it one more time I'm gonna report your ISP and say you were sending me kiddie porn you f*ck up.
eminemBNJA: Oh ****
eminemBNJA: damn I gotta write down your names or something
Most of the time you don't have the right to freely redistribute copyrighted material from books.
You don't want to accidently read a book for obvious reasons.
Some things are more important than an animated rat
>If it's one of the viral types I don't want to accidently look at any of the code for obvious reasons.
Why?
Are you worried you can't pirate the hard labour of others for your own personal profit and gain?
Rofl. One of the funniest posts I've seen. =)
Ah am not a crook! (\(-__-)/)
Is the site powered by Plan 9? I wonder because it seems to have been suffering from the /. effect.
You say things that offend me and I can deal with it. Can you?
it's only the world's WORST movie...ever...
It's even worse then "the boy with the golden arm" every geek should see it.
yeah, offtopic, I know...if only there was a +1 tangent mod.
Machine9dotNet
So, Plan 9 got GNUArt'ed ???
Trolling using another account since 2005.
ur ghey
This new license is not free. Not at all. Although it allows some things, it's far too restrictive to be called free.
Problem 1: What is it good for?
Problem 3: What does Plan 9 offer that would make me, or you, want to spend time installing and learning it?
These seem to be the biggest "issues" you propose, which you fully address in your other problem: Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that.
Many people seem to forget that there are many many many OSs out there that aren't flavors of *nix or Windows which are used for research purposes. There are quite a few which would make great multi-purpose systems if given the proper attention (Nemesis comes to mind) but never become as such because their features are integrated into other systems. But the need for development into other types of kernel structures, memory management, et al, is what keeps the OS world alive.
Contrary to popular belief, Linux can't do everything.
It extends the "everything is a file" paradigm to it's proper conclusion and gets rid of root.
Will it take over the world and replace Unix? No but it has a lot of very good ideas which can help direct future Linux and Unix development.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
Can't wait to check it out...once the site is no longer slashdotted.
plan 9 page google cache
When I tell an object to delete this, am I killing it or telling it to kill me?
John Fogerty sued for sounding like John Fogerty!
Fortunately, he won that case, but who knows how a similar case in the computer industry would turn out?
Curb CO2 emissions: Kill yourself today!
da whistle go woooooooooooo woooooooooooooo - like an alahmclock in da mornin'
This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.
While it is nice that the new license conforms to the requirements of the Open Source folks, that does not mean it is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) under which Linux is written. Indeed, not even all free software licenses are compatibel with the GPL (though the vast majority certainly are), and as yet I have not been able to find any commentary from the FSF on whether the modified license qualifies as "free", much less is GPL compatible (the old one certainly wasn't, as RMSes comments posted to this thread quite definitely explain).
So, before getting too excited about Plan 9's potential contribution to Linux, we need to first find out whether or not the licenses are even compatible, so that code can be shared between the two projects.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
...but first I'd like to know if it supports ext2 and if it can be booted with lilo?!
I guess that will be down for a bit.
Anyone got a mirror of it?
While researching cluster software for my current project, I read some whitepapers showing the differences between Plan 9, Beowulf, Mosix and others. I recommend that read.
Non-Linux Penguins ?
These news are funny when Slashdot's poll is "Worst Sci-Fi Movie Ever".
ESR has some info on Plan9 OS, wich include this footnote:
Prescriptive grammar:linguistics
Very nice. Shame my laptop won't work with Plan-9, I was tempted to put a copy on it.
/ .
If you found the Plan-9 FAQ but saw the URL to the Plan-9 wiki was broken, try http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/plan_9_wiki
Sorry, but the fact is if you use GPL code in other code in any way you are infected. It works EXACTLY the same way that seeing Microsoft's code would then infect you. Many employment contracts now have statements about not using GPL'd code in your work.
The result is different, with GPL you can't make a living off your work, and with Microsoft they sue you. But make no mistake both are equally bad.
And no, it wasn't a troll, I actually do need to know if the license is viral or not, but looks like noone will answer that question now will they.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
I suppose that you're actually joking here, but even if you're not new in our "little" community, you don't seem to know well the slashdot lame joke rules :
:
1] You may mention "imagine" "beowulf" "cluster" in your joke if the topic relate to anything remotely close to network or CPU power
(If you need to put all these words at once, then you must add the word "obligatory" in the post subject line)
2] You may reverse the topic assertion with the Soviet Russia formula.
3] You may turn your joke as a news article excerpt.
4] You may evoke the Iraq information minister as a fake source of your post.
5] You may combine rules as you see fit.
Let's now go from theory to practice with this little obligatory example
In other news, The Iraqi information minister commented on the OSI approval today : "[In Soviet Russia,] a Beowulf cluster of Plan9 systems imagine you !!"
But, seriously, you shouldn't ask this kind of question while giving http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ as your URL, knowing that Adam Beberg wrote a paper about Open Source licences for IBM, and that Mithral inc. is working on a product named Cosm, wich is competing against Plan9.
yes I am.
this cannot be Open sourced, it is OWNED by SCO as they own all Unix, and Unix-like products. They said so... uh huh. :)
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
How can you say that Plan9 is so cool? Just look at those crappy screen shots!
And you complain about OTHER people's FUD?????
The reasons aren't obvious. I've seen this myth before, notably from Microsoft employees. The idea that you can be "infected" by simply looking at GPLd code is nonsense.
Indeed you are correct. Imagine it like this. I write books for a living. I read a detective novel. Therefore I am banned from writing a detective novel. .. Erm, I don't think so.
Ironically, proprietary code is generally far more "infectious". I work on Wine - if I were to have seen the Windows code, I would be immediately banned from working on it, indeed, probably I'd be banned from working on most GPLd code.
While the Wine developers might or might not do this, there would be nothing illegal about working on Wine, provided you didn't do the obvious things like cutting and pasting large chunks of code.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
good thing they took so long otherwise we may have had plan9 linux....
I worked on this license. It is NOT viral.
It's basically the IBM license but changed not to be viral. Contributions must be covered by the same license, but that only applies if you declare your changes to be a Contribution.
If you want to take the code and go work on a closed project, no problem.
Clearly you've never seen A*P*E. It is so godawfully bad that I have no expectation of it ever being surpassed. I've attempted to watch it half a dozen times as a sort of endurance test. Despite copious quantities of alchohol and the company of good friends who share my predillection for painfully bad movies.
RMS has on many occassions been a complete idiot and anyone who would have looked into the new license or even the freeking headline, would have seen that the issue of it being truly open is in fact true.
OpenSource != FreeSoftware, but OpenSource does bring more freedom, odd isn't it?
GNU is old school ... OSI is new school ... lets get together and change our collective phiolosophies.
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
Am I the only one who gets an Object not found error when trying to download Plan9?
:(
I want the bunny os
everything in UNIX is modelled as a "file", whereas in Plan9 everything is modelled after a "burrito"
UNIX makes extensive use of the commandline and pipe metaphor, while Plan9 has a chaw spitbucket metaphor.
UNIX programmers are very wealthy and considered to be generally cool by all, whereas Plan9 programmers generally only are popular with other Plan9 programmers. This leads to inbreeding and other nasty stuff which is why AT&T was forced to put a stop to it.
Due to export restrictions, the plan9 can only be downloaded from US and Canada.
SCO owns, Ritchie, Kernigham and your mom
Simple enough. Thanks.
And for the people that wonder, the concern is not about being able to use it in non-open projects, the concern is conflicts with _other_ open licenses.
The OSI world desperately needs license portability.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Bell Labs' next project: ManOS
philcrissman.com.
There might be some common things what is considered free, but there are many that are not.
The Open Source Defintion is even only the same text as the Debian Free Software Guidelines it was taken from, though there are many things considered OSI-free, but not Debian-free.
(Debian does not even consider those guidelines to be anything near a "definition", as it is hard to tell what fullfits it. Think of it more as a not very well written law, it does not matter what is says but what the judges judged based on it.)
But, seriously, you shouldn't ask this kind of question while giving http://www.mithral.com/~beberg/ as your URL, knowing that Adam Beberg wrote a paper about Open Source licences for IBM, and that Mithral inc. is working on a product named Cosm, wich is competing against Plan9.
*laughs* OK, like I don't know who posted that one. And you know as well as I do that Cosm sits on top of the OS, try and keep up.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Personally, I think it's great that software is Open Source by OSI's definition, but 9 times of 10 I prefer Free Software over Open Source.
Software should be free as in speech, but if we also get some free beer, all the better.
Don't talk about compatable. GPL isn't compatable with BSD license, so we can't use your guy's code. You guys can take all you want, but we can't take. I like how GPL is "free".
Boy am I glad I added you to my friends list months ago. This shit is cracking me up, thanks for the laughs.
Hugs and kisses,
B_A_S (hit my posting limit...)
Here's what you're looking for...microkernel Linux. Sorry, I couldn't fine any screenshots.
It's refreshing to see someone voice their opinion on a topic that's given almost no attention anymore.
I can assure you that we don't know each other. Funny you could imagine me as someone you know (at least it means that I'm doing good progress in english)...Well as I'm posting as an AC, you'll never know anyway...
wasted my mod points yesterday!! mod this guy up!
... before the mighty RMS. And pass the reefer, man ... I wanna be just like him!
"It all sums up to the same issues that squeak smalltalk has: Everything about it is great, but no-one uses it for anything real."
Depends on how you define"Real", but then I guess if it isn't in your face then it's irrelevent.
The look of the screenshot reminds me of Squeak more than anything else. That's not necessarily bad (and, of course, the screenshot is just eye-candy).
Every new Open Source OS is a benefit. Just consider the current SCO imbroglio. Well, for this one the *BSDs provide a storm shelter for the worst case scenario. They aren't my choice of an OS, but it's comforting to know that they're there.
Likewise, the Hurd is coming along. It will provide an additional measure of security, as it derives from different roots. And AtheOS. Another independant creation. And now Plan 9. As it was originally created as a potentially proprietary OS, it will have a separate independant basis.
I think of Linux as the strongest of the Free Software trees, but I'm very thankful that it isn't the only tree in the forest. May the others also grow tall and wide.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Right. Unfortunately distinctions like legality or illegality have little meaning when the mismatch is as great as a corporation vs the individual. People simply can't take the risk of a legally groundless but nonetheless devastating lawsuit.
https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2003-June /025148.html
Fortunately, he won that case, ...
Yeah, but he also lost!
SteveM
thanks
with GPL you can't make a living off your work,
..
Really?? well I have a few people to inform of this
I've been wanting to tell that consultant here at work wher to shove hos Ferarri for a long time... and he only USES and WRITES GPL code, and for some silly reason we pay him....
Thanks for letting me know that you cant make a living off of your work if you use the GPL!
I knew the lawyer team was stupid telling me they can sell GPL based programs.....
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Don't talk about compatable. GPL isn't compatable with BSD license, so we can't use your guy's code. You guys can take all you want, but we can't take. I like how GPL is "free".
Please.
First, which part of "this will contribute to Linux" didn't you understand? Linux has absolutely nothing to do with the FreeBSD license, so spreading your divisive nonsense in this thread is woefully off-topic.
Second, the FreeBSD license is perfectly compatible with the GPL. It is also compatible with Microsoft's proprietary license, not to mention anyone elses. The fact that the GPL isn't compatible with FreeBSD (meaning you can't take GPLed code and incorporate it into FreeBSD-licensed code), and the fact that Microsoft's proprietary license is likewise incompatible, is entirely irrelevant.
Indeed, that one-way compatability was a deliberate decision made by the FreeBSD folks...who valued the developer's freedom to incorporate their hard work into proprietary products over the protection of the freedom of future developers and users. Which is a perfectly legitimate stance to take, though it just so happens to be in disagreement with the decision by the GPL folks to protect their users and derivative developers freedoms above even their own.
It is extraordinarilly disingenuous to criticize one free licenses philosophy and imply it to somehow be improper, when the very same license has led to FreeBSD code being included in products which protect neither the developers, nor the users freedom, such as Microsoft's usage of the FreeBSD network stack. Before lambasting the thousands of volunteers who have contributed millions of man hours for FREE, to enhance your FREEDOM, merely because you disagree with the aspects of freedom they choose to emphesize over the ones you would emphesize (if any, which I find questionable in this particular troll), perhaps you would like to address the use of FREE code in products that strip all said FREEDOMs away? Until you justify lambasting the 1-way compatability between two free licenses while ignorning the same 1-way compatability between FreeBSD and virtually every proprietary license, your entire argument devolves to hypocritical grandstanding, misinformation, and spin.
The GPL is free. FreeBSD is free. In different ways, with different protections, different emphesises on different aspects of freedom, and with different consiquences. Most of us who use FreeBSD are perfectly comfortable with this, and understand the differences that are part of the diversity of our community. Most of us who use GNU/Linux are likewise understanding and appreciative of both schools of thought, and can recognize the advantages and limitations of both.
It is only the few zealots on either side, and much more commonly divisive trolls like yourself, for whome this concept poses such difficulty.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
As the grandparent stated, hat you create is not automatically a derived work of everything you've seen. If it were, Disney would own the entire creative output of humanity (who didn't watch their IP as a child?)
What can be automatic is trade secrets. Here, there is precident (though I'm not sure how much) for presumption of automatic disclosure. Those who have seen MS code are forbidden to work on similar code elsewhere not because it would be a derived work but because it would reveal to the world some mystical MS essence.
We're safe from all that here. Nothing that can be publicly downloaded from the web can be a trade secret.
Sig:Why copyright isn't a fundamental human right
You chose to license it in such a manner that anyone can use your code without providing any recourse to you. If you had wanted something in return for your code, you wouldn't have licensed as BSD.
BSD'd code not being able to take from GPL is no different from BSD'd code not being able to take from proprietary code.
Solly Chollie -1 Troll
MkLinux
Less is more !
"A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
1. it complies with the terms and conditions of this Agreement;
2. if the Program is distributed in source code or other tangible form, a copy of this Agreement or Distributor's own license agreement is included with each copy of the Program; and
3. if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such license agreement:
1. effectively disclaims on behalf of all Contributors all warranties and conditions, express and implied, including warranties or conditions of title and non-infringement, and implied warranties or conditions of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose;(ok the BSD license does that)
2. effectively excludes on behalf of all Contributors all liability for damages, including direct, indirect, special, incidental and consequential damages, such as lost profits; and(ok BSD does that)
3. states that any provisions which differ from this Agreement are offered by that Contributor alone and not by any other party.(So Theo de Raadt can just note that he placed it under the BSD, not Bell Labs, and he's ok)
B. Each Distributor must include the following in a conspicuous location in the Program:
Copyright (C) 2003, Lucent Technologies Inc. and others. All Rights Reserved.
C. In addition, each Contributor must identify itself as the originator of its Contribution, if any, and manifest its intent that the additions and/or changes be a Contribution, in a manner that reasonably allows subsequent Recipients to identify the originator of the Contribution. Once consent is granted, it may not thereafter be revoked."
Seems to me like Bell Labs wanted to let the source go, but didn't want anything coming back to bite them. So they merely are making sure any claims stop with the first person to copy it and re-license it under the BSD license, and don't waste their lawyer money.
What's the big deal with Theo ?
Yes, it applies equally to proprietary code, which is why you need to negotiate an appropriate license before looking at another company's code.
As a professional developer, I will not look at the source code of a competing product unless it has an appropriate (i.e. BSD) license. While the threat of a lawsuit is remote, it is my responsibility to protect my employer from it.
If you looked at a GPLd algorithm and reimplemented it, somebody would have a hell of a time arguing in court that it was "derived".
I don't want to be in court at all.
Note also that the damages can be more than legal. If word gets out that a commercial product has "copied" lots of stuff (enough to provoke a lawsuit, for example), it is likely to suffer in public opinions, regardless of whether the definition of "copy" legally violated the license or not. Look at SCO: nobody outside SCO and IBM really has any real evidence one way or another, yet the company is already condemned to the depths of hell as far as Slashdot is concerned.
This is doubly the case for the vast majority of GPLd code, which is written by people who don't have huge piles of cash and who probably have a disdain for the legal system as well.
Irrelevant. The ability of a plaintiff to sue does not affect my need to work within legal limits. Besides, it almost sounds like you're saying we might as well really violate the GPL anyway since they're so unlikely to sue.
this FUD should not be propogated any further regardless.
Are you a lawyer, and has a case of this sort been prosecuted in court?
Sweet! Glenda is so much cooler than Tux
Demos here
Neet
If you're wondering how Plan 9 differs from Unix, check out:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html
It looks kind of like the BSD license. One may actually be able to steal code from it with impunity. All contributions may be redistributed, or altered and redistributed, in binary or source form.
The next paragraph (visit the URL yourself) grants the same rights to any patents which cover contributed code! Talk about protection.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
From the misc@openbsd.org list:
On Tue, Jun 17, 2003 at 03:44:18AM -0600, Theo de Raadt wrote:
There changes are not even close to making it free. If anything, in my opinion, they add constraints.
We can't export it to North Korea?
If we sell this on our CD, we are responsible?
Give me a break. This is not free. This is a TRAP.
I'm tired of dealing with those people, after many many emails. They don't believe or understand freedom, it appears. Freedom means you give it away. It means you GIVE IT AWAY. It does not mean you write a 180 line or more CONTRACT specifying what we give up in return for getting it. What you have there is not freedom -- it is BARTER, and we do not BARTER; we have nothing to barter with, since everything we give away is FREE.
At the end of the Dark Ages when IBM released the PC, hackers discovered that almost all of the parts could be obtained from 3rd party vendors. Floppy drives, video controllers, even CPUs came from multiple sources.
Two chips were closed and proprietary, however. The BASIC ROM from Microsoft and the BIOS ROM from IBM.
There was a little tiny company that decided it wanted to build PCs too but, unlike SCO, feared the wrath of the great IBM. The little tiny company hired another little tiny company and they put their heads together and developed a plan to defat IBM's legions of lawyers.
The little companies bought a few IBM PCs and lots of lawyers. They put these together in one room. Then they got some hackers and put them in another room. The hackers were told to develop a new BIOS that operated exactly like the IBM unit. In order to ensure that they didn't disassemble the IBM unit, only lawyers were allowed to touch the IBM hardware.
The first little company became Compaq, the other one was one of the early PC BIOS manufacturers.
You may want to look into BitTorrent to spread the server load around.
Boxen? Distrii?
Egads!
I think you're missing the point: Plan9 is more than just another Unix kernel, it's the next species in the evolutionary chain. It'd make a lot more sense to grab all the hardware support and shit from Linux and put it in Plan9 than to try and genetically engineer Linux to such a higher state of being.
You should change your sig. Everyone knows that Faramir is the "Steward of Gondor," and not the King. In fact, he was so distraught (and insane) at the return of the actual King (Aragorn), that he committed suicide.
You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
That is absolutely hilarious! LOL
More! More!
Cross platform tools like Python, Chandler, Mono and Mozilla. Using standards-based DHTML as the UI. Why add another platform to the mix when the real goal is to become platform agnostic?
.NET on Windows).
You can see the end-point of that with Java. Java is fairly reasonable on Windows and less than mediocre on Linux/X11. And even to achieve that mediocrity, it inserts a huge layer of APIs and code between the operating system and applications. Java applications are bloated, slow, and don't work properly.
Mono is decidedly not cross-platform: it gives you easy access to native libraries and native code/data and people are using them. Gtk# will probably be the most widely used Mono GUI toolkit. It is precisely because Mono is not cross platform that it has a much better chance to catch on with Linux developers (analogous to
It all sums up to the same issues that squeak smalltalk has: Everything about it is great, but no-one uses it for anything real.
Squeak is another poster child for why operating system independence sucks. Squeak looks nice, but you can't do anything real in it because it doesn't give you access to the underlying operating system: no desktop integration, very limited I/O, no reuse of operating system libraries.
The operating system matters. If the operating system API sucks, you can't fix it at a higher level. Each level of cross-platform abstraction you add loses some important functionality and performance. The end result is that something like Java or Squeak that thumbs its nose at the underlying OS will never take over; cross-platform is a specialty use.
What is it good for? Right now Plan 9 has no compelling applications and a dearth of the applications most people use daily. This might be fixed soon as people port things like OpenOffice to it, but don't hold your breath.
The easiest way of addressing that would be via a "Linux personality". Unclean as far as Plan 9 is concerned, but a small compromise if the rest is left intact. Works for BSD.
Overcoming the installed base. It took Linux nearly ten years to achieve name recognition, and it still is running a distant third on the desktop.
Linux is not a "distant third" on the desktop; its usage is at least comparable to Mac OS X, if it hasn't surpassed it already.
In any case, one of the big things that is holding Linux back in my opinion is the difficulties of configuring and installing the kernel. I don't know for certain that Plan 9 fixes that, but it looks like it might; it really can't be worse than Linux in that regard.
And if open source developers worried about installed base, they wouldn't have started working on Linux and GNU. Installed base basically doesn't matter if either you plan on competing, or you care about scratching your own itch.
He was working for Bell Labs at both points so they have no complaint. The real issue is the nature of rights that were retained when AT&T (Bell Labs former corporate parent) sold UNIX the first time. Did AT&T agree to get out of the OS business altogether? Does SCO now hold the right to enforce that agreement?
When it comes to licensing, the BSD fanatics (as opposed to mere BSD fans, of which I are one) are one of the few groups in the world that can make RMS look like a moderate.
No, not really.
Yes, it's true, the Linux and the OSS communities do occasionally take that approach, poor though it is. It's usually the result of poor planning or a simple rush get a feature running, regardless of whether or not it's been implemented correctly. Yet that's not the primary focus of OSS/Free Software.
A good idea will usually find it's way into the OSS arena simply because it's a good idea. Not necessarily always, but usually. The implementation may suck, but a lot of things suck.
Plan9 has a lot of good ideas. Perhaps these ideas will be "morphed" into better ideas. Hopefully these ideas will see more widespread use in the fields of Computer Science and Engineering. And hopefully they wont just be "glommed" on like wallpaper.
McDoobie
U.S.
U.S.
U.S.
What a twink....
The GPL is not viral! If you take MS's code and stick it in your program, they can (and will) sue you for copyright violation. If you take Joe's GPL'd code and stick it in your program, Joe can (and might) sue you for copyright violation, OR you can release your work under the GPL and everything's hunky-dory. Note the "OR" there. That's a new freedom you didn't have before. It may not be the freedom you want, but it's still a damn freedom you didn't have before. And hurling insulting terms like "viral" simply because someone doesn't give you every bloody permission you might possibly ever want, when the law doesn't require them to give you ANY permissions at all, is pathetic and whiney.
one is free to become seriously not-free
the other is free to seriously always-be free
that's as close as I grok it
The idea that you can be "infected" by simply looking at GPLd code is nonsense.
The reason why people worry about it is because many commercial vendors make such claims. Sun, for example, has claimed that people are "contaminated" by looking at Sun's Java source code. SCO is effectively making similar claims. Whether they hold up or not is another question, but companies are taking them seriously. And if they take them seriously for closed source code, it seems rational to take them seriously for open source as well.
To me, grep -e "'s" is like Batman scanning Gotham's skyline for the Bat Signal.
Among the changes was the export controls section.
It seems to me that Lucent is looking for someone in the Open Source community to take them up on this lisence and turn around and release it under a looser one, per the LPL. This would remove Lucent by an extra step from the Plan9 source and would probably make them less liable. I'll email them and ask if I read it correctly that this can be done.
The policy of the United States is worse than bad---it is insane. -- Ludwig von Mises, Economic Policy(1959)
It just occured to me that every BSD advocats response to something is usually well written, and thought out. No flames, no attacks, just plain facts that make sense.
Thats it, I'm switchng to freeBSD. Maybe I can have a diolog with those people that doesn't need a flame retardant suit.
That probably means I'll have to start checking my spelling.
*Interestng thought in no way means that my thought are interesting, or thoughts.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Since Brian Kernighan fixed some things he didn't like about C for Plan9, the code should be different enough.
interesting
So what you are saying, you can break copyright law and joe might sue you, or you can release under GPL.
Really, there is no OR in your example.Assuming one wants to be law abidding.
You can ONLY release it under GPL and not be infringing on a copyright.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
I know this is done to death, but you're actually further convoluting developers' rights with users' rights. By definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software is free for any sort of use. Now, another developer could pick it up, use it for something else, and RERELEASE it with restrictions, but if they do it will be released under ANOTHER license - NOT the BSD license. So, by definition, a piece of BSD-licensed software has no restrictions on it's use, including the rights of developers to restrict the use rights of daughter products that employ that software.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
My only real bitch about it is that I'm not smart enough to "get" it all... damn, the potential is mind-numbing.
Right. So as I said, Spitzak's comment
"Although there are differences between the BSD and GPL licenses, for some reason you managed to quote one area where they are identical. The GPL explicitly disallows any kinds of restrictions on use, just like the OpenBSD license, and just like your quote."
is incorrect.
BSD and GPL are not identical in this area and whilst the BSD license does implicitly lack any kind of restriction on use it most certainly does not explicity disallow such restrictions. This is not a criticism of either license.
"Ben, all that will come from flying that kite is you're going to get yerself kilt!"
"Now Alex, nobody's going to put all them wires up alongside every road, just to talk with their neighbors."
"Let me see if I understand you correctly, Mr. Ford. You want to build a factory to make motorized buckboards?"
"Linus, honey, come to bed now, please... Why don't you ask your advisor if you can change your thesis topic to Improving the Task-Switching Performance of OS/2?"
" Plan 9 is now open source"
I think this is old news. Press realease dates from June/2000 . Slashdot also has a story about it
Hey, but thanks to CmdrTaco its currently new news again according to Google. . You never know when dups come to hunt you...
In related news, micro$oft has just released Windows 2000 Server
---
Need a time machine?
We have 38 system calls, along with 10 now-deprecated calls.
Kernel functionality is added by serving more files from the kernel, not by adding calls. For example, there's no time(2) system call -- programs read /dev/time instead. And so on.
1) If you aren't selling the software binaries itself, it doesn't matter, you can do whatever you want.
2) You only have to include the source of the module in question (which I hope you extended with an API to not expose your trade secret code)
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
There's no such thing as a 16-sided die, you moron. Although if it were up to me, I think I'd rather roll a Schmitt-Conway Biprism than a regular hexakaidecahedron.
I'm a bit worried that they have a program called 'scat'. http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/screenshot.ht ml
http://www.google.com/search?q=scat
there's some nasty shit.
SCO is an entirely different matter - they are making wild claims that would never hold up in court, even if everything they said happened, had actually happened.
Irrelevant. The ability of a plaintiff to sue does not affect my need to work within legal limits. Besides, it almost sounds like you're saying we might as well really violate the GPL anyway since they're so unlikely to sue.
Of course I'm not saying that. You should always respect the license of the code you are working with - what I'm saying is that people spreading rumours that just looking at code "contaminates" you is ridiculous, and no coder in their right mind would sue on such a shaky pretense. Being scared of the GPL, despite it being worded extremely clearly, is just silly in my view.
Are you a lawyer, and has a case of this sort been prosecuted in court?
No, this is slashdot, IANAL :) I don't know what you mean by "case of this sort", if you has anybody taken another company to court because an employee looked at GPLd code then I wouldn't know, but I'd be willing to bet a lot that the answer is no. Nobody has ever gone to court even when found to be copying vast chunks, or entire programs exactly.
Nope, you're still missing it, as his quote is completely correct. The bit you're missing is that any BSD software re-released with use restrictions is no longer BSD-licensed! He's not contending that BSD stuff can be re-released under OTHER licenses with restrictions. However, they can't be re-released under the BSD license with these restrictions. Any perceived lack of proctection with BSD stuff is development-related, NOT use-related, and it isn't a BSD issue because by the time those changes are made, it's no longer BSD.
Look at it this way - I'm not a programmer, I'm just a user. You hand me a piece of BSD-licensed software. There is NOTHING I can't do with it. Replace BSD in that statement with GPL, and the statement is completely and equally (but no more) true. To the user of a specific piece of software, NOT IT'S POTENTIAL DESCENDENTS, the use rights of GPL and BSD software are equal and completely unfettered. No one is arguing that BSD doesn't protect generationally, this is well-accepted. But the original point was "Can I make a baby-mulching machine with BSD and/or GPL software?" The answer is yes, as use is unrestricted on either. The question isn't "Can I use this code and any other program this code might ever be used in to mulch babies?" That would be a generational question, and a development issue, not a use issue. It's not like re-releasing the code under a restrictive license makes my program disappear. I still have it. So, if I want to mulch some babies, I know I can use either BSD or GPL-licensed code, and that's the end of the story.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
t_t_t___ r_r_r___ ooooo___ l_l_l____ l_l_1
t___ t__ r___r__ o____ o__ l___ l__ l
t_t_t___ rr_rr__ o_____ o__ l_l_l____ l_l
t______ r___r__ o____ o__ l___________ l
t______ r___ r__ ooooo___ l_______ l_l_l
TO ALL MY DEAD HOMIES IN 229!