The LPL is dead. It died when all the Plan 9 IP was transferred to the foundation.
Nokia is out of the picture. So let's realign this discussion a bit. The Plan 9 source formerly owned by Nokia is owned by the foundation. That source is released under the MIT license. As for the inclusion of source not owned by the foundation, if that source has a license (e.g. MIT) which allows other projects, including the foundation's Plan 9 project, to include it in a distribution or repo, then that is ok. As per common practice, and up to the discretion of the author, the files typically include a license header and copyright notice. I'm not understanding the issue here. This is all pretty settled stuff: source code under one copyright and an MIT license which includes other source code covered by a different copyright and an MIT license. ron On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 4:10 AM Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > > As I interpret it, we'd need Nokia to re-release Plan 9 under a Lucent > > > Public License version 1.03 which would be the MIT license for > > > contributions to be relicensed (if I'm interpreting it correctly the > > > GPL release of Plan 9 couldn't apply to contributions either.) > > > > I Am Not A Lawyer, and I don't doubt that the P9 foundation can > > get good lawyers. But, once _ownership_ of the copyright was transferred > > to the P9F, they can do what they want with it, including publishing > > under the MIT license. There should not be a need to involve Nokia > > any further. > > The problem is Nokia doesn't own the contributions, so they can't transfer > them to the P9F, but the LPL says they have the right to update the LPL, > or was this right transferred to the P9F too? ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf20bce89ef96d4b6-M1271fb6cec1bac34d939ace4 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
