The comments on the #define lines and a commented out section of
stat(2) say (DM|QT)MOUNT indicates a mounted channel, what is this?
Also, why does exportfs fork and the kernel not send write on closed
pipe notes for mounted channels?
-- Mailfence.comPrivate and secure email
-
All file names are lower case (this makes some files inaccessible,
because there are sometimes multiple files with the same name) and the
modes, owners and groups are all --r--r--r-- (d-r-xr-xr-x for
directories), cdrom and iso, respectively.
Anonymous AWK fan
--
Mailfence.com
Private and secure
> This text was generated by the GPT3 text generator using all licensing
> related threads in 9fans as input.
No it wasn't.
I'm concerned because only one contributor (Nokia) transferred copyright
of their contributions to the P9F which were then re-licensed,
but everyone seems to think this app
I believe if Nokia published a Lucent Public License Version 2 which
was identical to the P9F MIT license that would fully resolve the
issue of re-licensing of contributions because the LPL v1.02 allows
re-licensing to later versions of the LPL.
Anonymous AWK fan
--
Considering Plan 9 has been relicensed under the GPL before without
permission from contributors and nobody said anything about needing
permission from contributors, I now think this relicensing is probably
fine.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.top
> Anonymous AWK Fan,
>
> I believe you’re under a misapprehension about how copyrights and
> source ownership work. You’re asking for solutions to problem that
> don’t exist. Take the BCM code RM contributed to Plan 9, for instance.
> Such contributions are considered a “gift” to the larger body
> Instead of cluttering the mailing list, can you go
> through the list of applied patches, track down the
> authors, mail them off list about whether they have
> objections to having their code relicensed, and
> forward their responses in one batch?
It appears many patches were submitted anonymou
> 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.
https://groups.google.com/g/plan9changes has many examples of patches
contributed to Plan 9.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink
> I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
> to be redistributed under the MIT license.
Is the new one in your contrib directory OK to be redistributed under
the MIT license too?
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/gr
> > The code under discussion
> > in Richard Miller's contributed bcm kernel.
>
> The web page http://9p.io/sources/contrib/miller/9/bcm says
> "Distributed under the MIT License" with a link to the p9f text.
> Is that not explicit enough?
the issue with that is AFAIK you didn't agree to have it
> 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.
The bcm
> Everything up to and including the initial 4th edition release should be
> fully MIT licensed because the old Plan 9 license gave Lucent unrestricted
> rights to modifications.
Excluding things explicitly said otherwise.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https:
Everything up to and including the initial 4th edition release should be
fully MIT licensed because the old Plan 9 license gave Lucent unrestricted
rights to modifications.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Tf20bce89ef96d4b6
> I assume any code in contrib/ has its author’s copyright unless there is an
> explicit copyright.
The code I'm talking about is in the Plan 9 tree, I've found
/sys/src/9/bcm/ as one example and I think there are probably more.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
> > 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?
/sys/src/9/bcm, for example.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/gro
> 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
> > 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 L
> > I'm talking about things like the bcm kernel contributed by Richard Miller
> > in the 4e-latest tarball, they weren't written at Bell Labs but were
> > contributed back to Plan 9.
>
> I would have thought any third party code in the /sys/src tree is considered
> to be a "Contribution" as def
> The transfer announced at the beginning of this thread only applies to
> the code that originated at Bell Labs (i.e. 1ed, 2ed, 3ed, 4ed, etc.)
>
> Any enhancements made externally (e.g. tls1.2) or new programs and
> systems (e.g. abacus) carry whatever the respective authors have
> released them
19 matches
Mail list logo
