Richard Miller being in this very thread, you could presumably get him to say "I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK to be redistributed under the MIT license" and be done with it. Or declare the opposite, and the p9f can remove the kernel from the source.
As for what to do about a hypothetical patch rewriting a kernel function that someone mailed to Bell Labs in 2003, well, I don't know. john On Wed, Mar 31, 2021 at 10:38 AM <arn...@skeeve.com> wrote: > > Nobody is disgruntled (that we know about). The code under discussion > in Richard Miller's contributed bcm kernel. > > Arnold > > Jeremy Jackins <jeremyjack...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Seems to me that there is always going to be some non-zero risk of lawsuits > > when making a change like this, but clearly the foundation was comfortable > > with the risk. So what's the point of this discussion? Who are these > > disgruntled contributors you are speaking on behalf of? > > > > On Wed, 31 Mar 2021 at 09:34, <k...@a-b.xyz> wrote: > > > > > > It’s all the code that everyone is using. > > > > The issue is that there is some code in Plan 9 not written at > > > > Bell Labs which doesn't explicitly specify any license. > > > > > > What actual code are you reffering to? > > > ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf20bce89ef96d4b6-Mf8325a99de066810ea9ebe8c Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
