Dear list
I just ran into a number of discussions on the Internet about the
fight against licence proliferation and then went to OSI to see how
things looked for Plan9.
According to their documentation [1, 2], it sort of looks like this
LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant with
> I just ran into a number of discussions on the Internet about the
> fight against licence proliferation and then went to OSI to see how
> things looked for Plan9.
>
> According to their documentation [1, 2], it sort of looks like this
>
> LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant
Does this mean that for all intents and purposes, Plan9 can be
considered EPL (even if licence notices say otherwise)?
The short answer is "no". You don't get to change the license, even if
you or some other body decide the terms are equivelent in some way.
You're given the software under t
>You don't get to change the license
``3. REQUIREMENTS
A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
...
c. if distributed under Distributor's own license agreement, such
license agreement:
___ (machine) ___ (date) Hung up on ___ (ip address); clamed to be ___ (name)
ladd May 25 08:21:23 Hung up on 207.36.233.113; claimed to be dedicated
ladd May 26 02:00:31 Hung up on 178.125.17.236; claimed to be computer
ladd May 26 06:48:02 Hung up on 116.74.92.47; claimed to be genius
ladd May 2
On 26 May 2010, at 16:34, erik quanstrom wrote:
___ (machine) ___ (date) Hung up on ___ (ip address); clamed to be
___ (name)
ladd May 25 08:21:23 Hung up on 207.36.233.113; claimed to be
dedicated
ladd May 26 02:00:31 Hung up on 178.125.17.236; claimed to be computer
ladd May 26 06:48:02
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 4:42 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>>You don't get to change the license
>
> ``3. REQUIREMENTS
> A. Distributor may choose to distribute the Program in any form under
> this Agreement or under its own license agreement, provided that:
> ...
> c. if distributed under Di
I don't see a follow-up on this topic... I hope someone still has an
idea.
- Forwarded message from fr...@inua.be -
From: fr...@inua.be
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Subject: Re: [9fans] no frame buffer
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at mfilter3-v.gandi.net
Mail-Followup-To: 9fans@9fans.net
X-
>Really there are just two kinds of licenses: ones that allow
>relicensing and ones that don't.
BSD-licensed software can't be re-licensed but it doesn't matter,
since the terms are as liberal as could possibly be, and you can just
license your own copyrighted contributions separately. And,
attem
I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
loopback mount in /tmp. The only files in my home are in the top
directory (the license, etc
> '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
would it be possible given external constraints, to pick
a name more in keeping with plan 9 style like tvxroot
rather than Tvx-root?
- erik
> LPL superseded by LPL 1.02, which in turn is redundant with CPL
false. CPL is viral while LPL is not
russ
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
>>Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same camp.
>
> You mean FSF?
Whoops, yes, FSF.
-Jack
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 12:57:02 Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 9:24 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> >>Kinda puts MS and EFF in the same camp.
> >>
> > You mean FSF?
>
> Whoops, yes, FSF.
>
No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
one might even go so fa
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey wrote:
> No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
> one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're practically
> bedfellows.
I'm just noting that usually licensing is looked at as a continuum of
commercial vs fr
>> '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
>
> would it be possible given external constraints, to pick
> a name more in keeping with plan 9 style like tvxroot
> rather than Tvx-root?
I would say it is possible/probable but there are a couple of details we
would need to
On Wednesday 26 May 2010 1:28:54 Jack Johnson wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 12:08 PM, Corey wrote:
> > No doubt - MS and FSF are clearly in the same camp. Allies even! Heck,
> > one might even go so far as to venture the notion that they're
> > practically bedfellows.
>
> I'm just noting that
> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
> install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
> loopback mount in /tmp. The only files in my home are in the top
> directory (the l
sed '43 s/H/L/' Tvx
Why are there TWO ways for cp to follow symlinks? Why are there
symlinks it all? (That should do it.)
And, still:
cd /sys/doc
ls | grep 8
8
cd 8
Can't cd 8: '8' file does not exist
cd 8½
Can't cd 8½: '8½' file does not exist
cd 8?
ls 8?.ms
8�.ms
touch 9½
ls 9½
9½
Nick
> > cp: can't preserve ownership of
> > '/home/tc/Tvx-root/sys/lib/ghostscript' :Operation not permitted
cp doesn't try to preserve ownership by default.
(unless there's something new and wierd that i
missed.) perhaps you could track down the source
of the cp flags and change them.
> like either
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
> install in /usr/local, but option 1 also links, but to the package
> loopback mount in /tmp.
Is th
On Wed May 26 12:33:49 EDT 2010, fr...@inua.be wrote:
> I don't see a follow-up on this topic... I hope someone still has an
> idea.
not really. you may wish to double-check the vga register
settings. not sure about crt[13].
sometimes aux/vga -l text works when nothing else
does.
- erik
On Tue May 25 21:56:49 EDT 2010, lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
> > Nedmail and acme Mail are operating on the same
> > mailbox, and nedmail already has a nice language
> > built in. Back when I did that sort of thing, I found
> > it easy to just fire up nedmail in a shell window.
>
> But ultimatly thi
it makes more sense to get the skinny on the next n
messages, akin to page's cache. but in order to do
that, the next n messages need to be obvious without
poking through the whole pile in order to sort.
This is exactly why IMAPs Thread and Sort extensions are such a big win.
Note that upas wo
> This is exactly why IMAPs Thread and Sort extensions are such a big win.
they couldn't do everything wrong.
- erik
On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Be careful .. did you set up a persistent /home? I'm not sure what you
> have done. There's no substitute at some point for seeing how things
> work at tinycore.org.
Not necessary -- once the install script is fixed to actually follow
the syml
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Nick LaForge wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich wrote:
>> They're not going away I bet, but what are you talking about here?
>
> No, I want symlinks to go away from the universe. (Bind them in a bag
> and drown them in the ocean)
you'll get n
Ah, right. I meant you don't get to change which license you got the
software under. It wasn't my intent to imply one couldn't relicense
differently. Thanks for clarifying.
On May 26, 2010, at 8:42, Charles Forsyth wrote:
You don't get to change the license
``3. REQUIREMENTS
A. Distrib
On Thu, 27 May 2010 02:51:44 +, ron minnich
wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:50 AM, Nick LaForge
> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 3:58 PM, ron minnich
wrote:
>
>>> They're not going away I bet, but what are you talking about here?
>>
>> No, I want symlinks to go away from the universe.
On Wed, 26 May 2010 16:58:51 -0700, ron minnich
wrote:
> On Wed, May 26, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Nick LaForge
> wrote:
>> I tried it and it is very fast to boot and run. However, the wrapper
>> did not copy Tvx-root to my home dir. Option 2 links to the package
>> install in /usr/local, but option 1
>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
option 2 just links to the root dir in /usr/local which is just fine
On Wed, 26 May 2010 21:03:18 -0800, Nick LaForge
wrote:
>>> you'll get no argument from me on that score.
>
>> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version.
>
> I think he was responding to my hyperbolic statement there. There's
> no reason not to use symlinks if we can't bind things anyway. Your
>
On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 4:19 AM, EBo wrote:
> Ok. I'll remove it in the next version. It was only added as an attempt
> to deal with people who do not want to make a second copy of the root.
Ebo, I'm sorry if I added to the confusion.
Don't change your use of symlinks. I meant more as a globa
33 matches
Mail list logo
