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)
There is no hidden in http://plan9.bell-labs.com/plan9dist/license.html .
It's not too shabby:
Plan 9 is designed around the basic principle that all resources appear as files in a hierarchical file system (namespace) which is unique to each process. These resources are accessed via a network-level protocol called 9P which hides the exact location of services from the user. All servers provide their services as an exported hierarchy of files.
Features
The dump file system makes a daily "snapshot" of the filestore available to users
Unicode character set support throughout the system
Advanced kernel synchronization facilities for parallel processing
ANSI/POSIX environment emulator (APE)
Plumbing, a language driven way for applications to communicate
Acme - an editor, shell and window system for programmers
Sam - a screen editor with structural regular expressions
Support for MIME mail messages and IMAP4
Security - there is no super-user or root, and passwords are never sent over the network
There is no god
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.
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.
So far as I have experience, Plan 9 is the way computers will all be run, someday at least. With everybody having a 50 THz machine on their desktop, obviously everybody doesn't need that speed at once. So if your neighbor that just browses the web doesn't need his CPU cycles, you can use his for your Doom XXVII game. If he needs some, your computer can give them to him. Obviously there are big latency and permissions issues to be solved, but it is very good in principle.
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
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!*/
Yeah, but now it's been posted to slashdot, loads of people are bound to rush out and code/port bells, whistles, flashing lights, and all sorts of stuff to make it look 1337.
On a more serious note, it's a reinvention of unix with the benefit of hindsight by the original inventors AFAIK. Read the specs - it has loads of wacky and inventive features. It runs on a cluster of PCs instead of a single processor, for example.
If I seem short sighted, it is because I stand on the shoulders of midgets
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
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.
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.
It's Bell Lab's design for the successor to Unix, learning from Unix's successes and failures.
Instead of everything being a file, everything's a file system. Instead of processes communicating through pipes, everything communicates through plumbing (like a cross between pipes and an email system).
It's tiny, coherent, and elegant. I really hope we see more of it.
-Billy
In many countries in Europe, an employee retains the rights to his intellectual capacity and skills.
This does not mean that he can use all the material he produced at his former employer but it does mean that he can use his intellect how he sees fit. This would include finding solutions to problems that are part of his normal work. Now the big question is how much such "snippets of code" are normal work routines or real intellectual property of his former employer.
I would assume that, for programmers, there exist a great many problems that you would use similer code for. This would mean you should be able to use the same solutions used at your former employer for those same type of problems.
If a company finds a really innovative way of doing things there is always the possibility of taking the IP route: getting something patented. If you haven't done that and didn't keep your solution a tight secret, chances are it's too common to protect from copying or you didn't invent it in the first place.
Now, of course, the situation in the US is different than European countries and with respect to the law system on these kind of IP issues the US system may differ greatly. (I have been amazed many times before)
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 ?
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
"What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux..."
They already have. Have a look at these:
9wm - a window manger that acts like 8 1/2 from Plan 9
Wily - a clone of Plan 9s programmers editor, Acme (v cool)
There's also WindowLab, another window manager which uses the same window resizing system as Plan 9.
I'm sure there's more that I don't know of...
Our web server and FTP server serve the same files. /hidden is the exception to the rule, meaning that you can't list that directory using the FTP server (or the web server). We use it for things we don't want people stumbling upon. The license files were kept there when we were doing the initial OSI approval, and we just haven't moved them yet.
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.
I am no expert but it is pretty damned free it would seem.
It denies liability.
It allows you to modify the liscence if you're new liscence meets the requirements.
It makes you grant the rights to any patanted tech you incluede
It lets you redistribute.
The catches I see are
1) in a "conspicous place" in your program you must add a copyright Lucent and others tag
2) if you distribute it commercially you must protect the contributers from damages against any claims you make (The way I understood it is if you say this kicks ass, and it doesn't you must take all liability).
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
https://lists.cse.psu.edu/archives/9fans/2003-June /025148.html
If you're wondering how Plan 9 differs from Unix, check out:
http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/9.html
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.
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.