> if you notice missing copyright messages: please send a patch. i have no clue what is required, but if you represent freetype or truetype or can imagine their legal requirements, please help us out there. it will be highly appreciated. btw, i hear about this for the first time.
This was an example and I didn't find the original licenses from freetype in the folder or in the code. Perhaps they got lost while porting this code to 9front. I don't represent freetype and never claimed to > huh? which files exactly do you have doubts about? Any files where I don't know who and how wrote it. Was is ported is it just a reimplementation. I didn't sit by your side when you wrote your contributions or sources. and most when not all files in your distro have no hints about the author or the copyrights. Or did I miss any special folder where you provide the information regarding authorship of your sources ? > to me plan9 is indeed a toy. i wish it was otherwise. though it's a > toy that is to me personally much more useful than most "professional" > software. Nothing wrong about using an operating system in this way. As long as I'm using my fork for my personal needs I call it toy tool the moment I have to deliver something to others I can't view it anymore as a toy. So as always you misinterpreted this sentence : I didn't name 9front a toy that would be rude 9front is used by users and the moment you distribute it its a serious work which everyone me included has to respect. I didn't call 9front a toy but the purpose of its use. You can of course use plan9 for any tasks you can imagine and not the system is a toy. I would be really surprised if a programmer mistook this statement of mine. > That is a lie. We never ignored the license that plan9 was placed > under - and it was the lucent public license, which is extremely > permissive. > We completely ignored the work done later (by others) around > dual-licensing the GPL bec. we don't consider that an acceptably > permissive license and we disagree with that philosophy. I already replied to this and said that I didn't know you used the LPL version instead of GPL. I didn't know that you made that clear Ron defended your actions too so that's something I made a false assumption. Sorry for that. > Do not contribute to 9front if you are not ok with the MIT license. To > me this is why 9front is useful, but everybody has different legal > interpretations, so i'm only sorry that you can not see it's worth. If I contribute to plan9 than this will be made with an MIT license and all necessary information so that others can use the code if they see fit and this is also valid for 9front you can but thats your decision. On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 12:05 PM, hiro wrote: > I don't think p9f has ever provided anything apart from that misleading website and some kind of money transfers to people that i don't know. They are the ones chosen by Nokia and make plan9 available with an MIT license thats more than enough. To be honest with the fact that they until now decided to just distribute the final release instead of contributing enhancements to the system itself. I'm sure the outcome of such enhancements and contributions would have started never ending discussions arguments from 9front. They preserve plan9 as of the final release and forks can take this as a basement with clean licenses. I'm grateful to their acting for what they accomplished and respect the fact that they didn't change anything till now. On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 12:05 PM, hiro wrote: > 9legacy has both 9front and 4th edition code, as you already said. and many other people contributed stuff to both 9legacy and 9front, and other forks. For my personal taste 9legacy has should restrict itself to bugpatches for the final release. Anything beyond that should be part of /n/sources. But thats my opinion. ------------------------------------------ 9fans: 9fans Permalink: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tcf128fa955b8aafc-Me6f3d0b36f444b6ea666d4c1 Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
