> 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.
The issue is that there is some code in Plan 9 not written at Bell Labs which doesn't explicitly specify any license. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf20bce89ef96d4b6-M81a8927d733e37bfb5439f32 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
