
Bell-Labs Releases New Version Of Plan 9 332
F2F writes "Plan 9 from Bell Labs Fourth Release was announced yesterday marking a major overhaul of the entire operating system. VMware images are now supported, together with hoards of new hardware. The operating system now sports a new security model (on top of the old one, which was already quite secure), new network-resident secure storage system and improvements in the thread library, among others. See the release notes here: release4 notes or simply go to the download page at: plan9 download." T. adds: erikdalen sent in these links to critiques of the Plan 9 license from Richard Stallman and Nathan Myers.
spam (Score:1)
Is this the first OS to have spam filtering built right into it? Sounds neat, until they can really handle long file names.....
Re:spam (Score:2)
Well.. (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
[Another funny point -- the names of the (cpu-specific) linker programs (at least in a previous incarnation of plan9) were things like `l8', `lm', etc -- e.g., the letter `l', and a single letter code for the cpu type -- for a program which you don't invoke manually 99% of the time. I can understand why making `rm' short is a good idea, but the linker?
I'd hate to have the job of coming up with new non-conflictng single-letter cpu codes...]
Re:Well.. (Score:2)
you have it the wrong way round, by the way, it's 8c, 8l etc.
and it's the loader not the linker. The unix type compile pipeline is not followed.
see How to Use the Plan 9 C Compiler [bell-labs.com] by Rob Pike
Pretty Secure... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:2)
Secure in what sense? Security is risk control, what risks are they attempting to control here? To what extent do they succeed?
The big problem with O/S level security has been usability. There are plenty of Orange book A level O/S arround, but using one is no fun at all and only likely to happen if you are ordered to do so.
UNIX did not originaly have a security architecture, it eventually absorbed a bunch of ideas from Multix but even then it was often too little too late. Even the oft quoted claim that UNIX is equivalent to C2 security is actually false, one of the most important aspects of the orange book series were the principles of shipping the O/S in a safe condition and that there should be a security guide with a specific set of instructions. I am not aware that either ever happened.
Not that WNT is any better on this front, OK so there is a security guide, but the O/S certainly does not ship in a default secure configuration.
From a security point of view I found Plan-9 a major disappointment from the start. What was needed was a major redesign and a reduction of the O/S to its essentials. Instead we just see yet more UNIX style featureitis. Yet more poorly documented niche programs that come bundled with the O/S for no good reasons.
Maybe the new version is better, but I doubt it. All in all it tends to reinforce my view that these people largely just got lucky by being in the right place at the right time with the right software license.
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's true if you use a "everybody inside can do everything, nobody outside can do anything" model of security. If you can set up security properly, one dumb and careless user would allow an attacker to do no more nor less than that dumb and careless user should be doing anyway.
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:3, Informative)
Secure. Proving something bug-free is very difficult, but is an area of intense research.
You said it yourself. Not 100% bug free...now wich is it? What is this golden OS that is bug free and TOTALLY secure, yet isn't totally secure or bug free. Maybe you should have read your paragraph again?
Why don't you think about it a little more yourself? I'll give you a hint: bug != security hole (necessarily). Only in poorly designed operating systems does a bug allow exploits. The very severe bugs may cause some degree of compromise even in secure systems, but if the security model is sound, the breach is always isolated.
Anyway...if it was 100% 'secure', wouldn't that make it immune to attacks? [...]
Be careful with your assumptions.
secure:
1: free from fear or doubt
2: free from danger or risk
3: kept safe or defended from danger or injury or loss
4: remote from any source of danger
5: not likely to fail or give way
6: able to withstand attack
Only one of the above refers to resilience against attacks. There are always attacks that cannot be protected against (ie. DOS attacks), but we can make the system reliable enough to not buckle and fail, and which will not be compromised under these attacks. That's security.
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:3, Funny)
there is no security through obscurity
Then why do you hide your email address?
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:2)
For example, if you have a webserver and a large netblock, and only have ssh listen on one IP outside of the netblock, you could argue that you're trying to protect your server through obscurity -- the way of getting a shell is "obscured." But obviously, this method isn't exactly extreme security, it just makes things slightly harder for a would-be {hacker | cracker}. Something like this should merely complement an existing security plan.
On a similar note, why do you think military/defense stuff is often kept secret? The obscurity makes things a little more secure, but the Army isn't useless if people figure out what they're doing.
Re:Pretty Secure... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Plan 9 Licence (Score:5, Informative)
According to the people at Bell Labs, if the Lucent lawyers agree, Plan9's licence could immediately be changed to something more in terms with RMS' revolution.
Unfortunately those same lawyers have been petitioned quite so many times already.
Re:Richard Stallman's vision (Score:2)
Have to agree about transport though - despite the hassles of public transport in London, it is still easy enough to get around without a car.
Re:Richard Stallman's vision QWZX (Score:2)
And you're posting this on... Slashdot. Right. You know, occasionally there are stories on here about Microsoft, and other big corporations. You should try reading one of those stories some time, and see whether US citizens feel enfranchised, or whether they actually feel the system is vastly biased in favour of the rich.
And last time I was in the States, I was actually struck by the number of pointlessly intrusive laws. Huge roads through the middle of nowhere had 50mph speed limits; people under the age of 21 weren't allowed to drink a beer - even at home; I bought a bottle of bathroom cleaner that said "it is a federal offence to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labelling"; my hosts even explained to me it was illegal to park my car facing the wrong way. Yay liberty and freedom.
Ah, booger... (Score:2, Funny)
Not to mention that it needs to be beaten by a big honkin' pretty [bell-labs.com] stick.
Re:Ah, booger... (Score:2)
. .
Well, I'm currently downloading the VMWare Virtual Disk Image [bell-labs.com] of Plan 9. It says it's the latest version, let's see . . But at least that ought to solve any hcl problems ;)
Bell Labs? (Score:1)
If you don't like their license... (Score:5, Insightful)
When people are offering you something for free, it's pretty rude to complain that they're not offering you even more.
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:5, Insightful)
It is decidedly not rude, however, to explain to others what the problems with a self-proclaimed "open source" license are and why they shouldn't use the code either. It is also not rude to explain to the authors, politely, why one can't use the license the way it is; that may help the authors figure out how they might be able to grow their user community.
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:2)
No, it's Lucent's false offer that is rude (Score:2)
The license is actually an IP monkey trap. It pretends to be open, tempting us all to invest our time and effort into the release. But it's actually very restrictive, and gives Lucent many ways to pull the rug out from under us once we've "trapped" ourselves by investing our time and effort.
If Lucent is serious about getting people to use the release, they need to offer it under some License which involves a true fair exchange. I'm surprised that this isn't self-evident to the Plan 9 developers.
--Mike
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:3, Interesting)
When people are offering you something for free, it's pretty rude to complain that they're not offering you even more.
They aren't offering it "for free", they are offering it "with strings attached".
License issues over technical issues? (Score:2)
It kind of reminds me of political people of both the right and the left -- they evaluate solutions to problems first on the ability to adhere to the preferred political paradigm rather than the technical merits.
And its not that those questions aren't sometimes appropriate, I'm just surprised how often it turns up BEFORE someone asks if the technical merits might make what the license is a moot point.
Re:License issues over technical issues? (Score:2)
That's because the `technical merits' have no power to make the license a moot point (unless I suppose the software is so horrible that no one cares). If the license makes it impossible for you to realistically use the software, then you can't use it, no matter how great it is.
I guess you could study it to get good ideas -- but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that there are patents lurking in there too (especially considering that it's from bell labs)...
Re:License issues over technical issues? (Score:2)
That's what I was getting at. If the software isn't compelling, who cares? And I guess it would make sense to see if the software was compelling on its own merits before the tedious licensing politics got dragged out again.
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:3, Insightful)
No, when people are offering something that they say is free, but actually has hidden restrictions or responsibilities, it's not free at all.
Here's a lawnmower for you. It's free! But if you use it to cut your lawn, you have to come over to my house and cut my lawn too. Don't complain, it's free, isn't it?
-Russ
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:2)
I remember someone a while ago saying something to the effect of 'If I give you apples but then force you to give away any pies you make with them, I'm not really sharing'.
I know why people like GPL but it's not the pinnacle of freedom by any means.
Re:If you don't like their license... (Score:2)
Is this the one... (Score:1, Funny)
Great! (Score:4, Funny)
The entertainment possibilities are endless.
Re:Great! (Score:2)
Been there, done that, kill 'em all.
UI (Score:3, Interesting)
Plan9 has some really cool ideas, the more Unix than Unix everything-as-a-file paradigm, the network transparent file system, directory merging, the list goes on and on.
But I just can't get past the mouse-intensive UI. I absolutely hate it.
Re:UI (Score:1)
What happened to the Zombies (Score:4, Funny)
Glenda (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Glenda (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Glenda (Score:2)
(I should hope I don't have to explain this...)
Hoards (Score:2, Offtopic)
That's HORDES, as in the Golden Horde of Genghis Khan, meaning lots, not HOARDS as in a secret treasury. Also, for future reference, probably LOSE not LOOSE, and FAZE not PHASE are the words intended.
Re:Hoards (Score:2)
Help! (Score:2)
I assume you mean I should change it in the plan.ini, and not in X or win2k which makes no sense given the appearance of the display.
How do I modify that with it all fscked up? how do I boot rio-less?
I've read everything relavent on the bell-labs site, and learned a lot of other stuff- I'm installing it on another box with the floppy, but I'd like it to work in vmware too:)
~m
Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2, Flamebait)
Making everything a byte stream is consistent - sure, great - but byte streams are pretty pathetic. Some kind of OO file system where everything is an object, and you can hook objects together would be something much cooler. Something kinda like a lisp machine combined with a persistent store, where you can operate on any object using standard language constructs.
So who gives a %&*#@ about Plan 9. Let it die.
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Plan9 is in no way unix.
It tried (and succeeded) to do several things.
Plan9 removes the distinction between operating system, library, and application. These are things that an OS researcher cares about but a user doesn't.
So if you are developing plan9 apps, you *never* worry about the actual hardware. You worry about the program itself. The systems guys can map it to whatever hardware they want later.
You create your own personal computing environment the way you like it, and that environment can be mapped onto whatever sized plan9 installation you find later.
Yes.. it makes everything a file, or more accurately, every resource has a name in a tree-like structure. (not so much that everything is a file but a file is just another resource).
communications between resources is via a standard protocol (9p) that can be networked.
A system like you are proposing COULD go on top of plan9. That's more of a programming level thing than an OS level thing.
The thing is, plan9 offers no real benefit to a single user on a single computer. Running plan9 on your laptop is of no real use.
Running plan9 on your laptop because you are developoing apps that will ultimately run on the globe-wide corporate plan9 system.. that's where plan9 excels, because the little namespace you construct on your laptop.. when you plug your laptop into the global network, you can re-map your cpus for a given application to the supercomputing cluster in shanghai, the storage vault in the Caymans, and the 12 gig removable drive on the workstation next to you, and the application you wrote sees nothing different at all.
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2)
Sounds good. So why can't I accomplish the same thing by coding on a platform such as Java (cross-CPU/cross-OS) and simply map my storage to wherever I want (via SMB/NMB on Win32 or NFS on Linux/BSD/Unix). My application would see nothing different at all.
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2)
he plan9 security model actually works.
more info at: http://plan9.bell-labs.com/sys/doc/auth.html
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:5, Insightful)
Sure, we can make drive F: just about anything these days, or we can network mount / to anything we want.
In plan9, every application works within a private namespace. Resources in that namespace can be mapped to anything, easily. It's not just about getting the files from somewhere else. it's about using different memory, processors, etc.
It's like symlinking EVERYTHING.. even all your devices.. but that doesn't even really cover it.
It's more than that.
It's not about platform independence.. it's about moving from a small scale system like a laptop to an absolutely huge-scale system like nothing you've ever seen before. It's about looking at resources.
From a developer (or user) point of view.. everything in plan9 is an abstraction.
A window has the same properties as a native screen. Keyboard input is identical everywhere.
It's not about processor-architecture independent code actually. Code still has to be built for the proper platform. (it can be re-built with absolutely zero modification, however)
It's about re-mapping any kind of resource somewhere else at will. It's about scaling up to huge systems.
It's not just about code that can run anywhere.. it's more like, you sit at your workstation and run some code. It runs locally.. everything is local except say part of your namespace which is the equivalent to a networked home directory for your project. Then you want the project to run somewhere else... so you run another clone of it, but this time you adjust the namespace for the app to use the big CPU cluster rather than your desktop. Everything looks and feels the same, exactly. Your workstation coudl be at home, or on your boat even.
With java, sure you can move stuff around, upload it elsewhere, run it elsewhere..
with plan9 you can basically run a huge collection of computers as one big computer with lots of different resources.
Or to quote (or probably mis-quote) something from the plan9 site..
Instead of building a system out of lots of little Unixes, we build an OS out of lots of little systems.
You look at a plan9 installation as one giant computer with resources, not as lots of independent computers that can communicate with each other.
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2)
Isn't removing this distinction exactly what Microsoft wants to do? Then they can sell anything and call it Windows
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing that could mark you more clueless, would be if you started touting Windows.NET as the true modern OS.
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2)
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:3, Insightful)
Putting objects on top of this would be no more kludgy than putting them on top of the underlying architecture. Bytestreams reflect reality.
IF you want to design a system that can utilize hardare the way plan9 does and use objects instead.. how would it work? Probably very similar to plan9
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2)
Slashdot is not about the letter "o". Yes, it uses the letter "o". Several times, throughout the site. Hamlet is not about castles in Denmark. Yes, it takes place in a castle in Denmark. Plan 9 is not about everything-is-a-file. Yes, it makes everything a file.
Now do you understand?
Did anyone else think that "every resource has a name in a tree-like structure" sounded a bit like the Windows(TM) registry?
The concept of a system registry is not that bad - it's the implementation that screwed up the Windows registry. Otherwise, an XML file is basically data in a tree-like structure, as is just about every object oriented system... as are most filesystems post ITS and CP/M style labeled areas.
--
Evan
Re:Plan 9 is old hat (Score:2, Insightful)
This kind of comment keeps popping up here. I wouldn't write off files just yet. Files are simpler, but so is their interface. The API to files is very shallow, and you get right to the implementation layer very quickly. Objects obviously provide much more sophisticated functionality, but the API is also more complex (while seeming simple) and requires much more overhead (read: cpu cycles) in the interface layer before you get down into the implementation.
If performance is paramount, then files - with their simple, dumb byte-stream interface - are the way to go. If you care more about clean interface and don't mind spending a lot of cpu cycles in the interface layer (rather than in the implementation), then something like persistant objects are good.
Interesting bit about license (Score:5, Insightful)
By the looks of things, there's no restriction on you modifying the gode, with the exception that you must make your modifications available to the company. This would be sort of like forcing everyone who hacks the linux kernel to send in patches, which could be a useful thing to do. But there's no restriction on people messing with the code in the first place.
I'm not saying this software is free by Stallman's definition, but perhaps this is not quite as bad as he makes it out to be.
OS competition, if nothing else, motivates everyone to write better software (unless you're a monopolist, but we won't get into that). As a linux partisan, I say "Bring it on"
Re:Interesting bit about license (Score:2)
==[ This would be sort of like forcing everyone who hacks the linux kernel to send in patches, which could be a useful thing to do. ]==
Why? I thought Linus had enough problems processing the number of 'functionality patches' he already receives. Don't the majority of them get dropped already?
Re:Interesting bit about license (Score:2)
That's not his critique. What he said is that they don't grant you unlimited rights on the code, but require you to grant unlimitied rights on your modification. That's quite a difference. He even mentiones that "... this does not by itself disqualify the license as a free software license ...".
Re:Interesting bit about license (Score:2)
You do need to sign over your copyright to the FSF if you want the FSF to distribute the software and assume maintenance for it. That has nothing to do with the GPL.
Re:Interesting bit about license (Score:2)
Too bad for me, actually, as I think it is possible that fltk would have been used instead of gtk as the basis for Gnome. Conversely though I think our explicit statement that static-linking a closed-source program is allowed(somewhat converse to the LGPL) has made fltk popular in it's own right.
too little, too late (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:too little, too late (Score:2)
Lucent use plan9 internally for many departments and it is used in some of their telephone systems.
It is a research OS and pegs itself as nothing more.
It has many unique features and because of that can be an influence in you rday to day projects.
I use the things I have learned from plan9 daily in my code.
Even just using wily & the rc shell on FreeBSD is enough reward for me.
RMS is being unfair (Score:4, Insightful)
Plane 9 lisence: Distribution of Licensed Software to third parties pursuant to this grant shall be subject to the same terms and conditions as set forth in this Agreement,
RMS: This seems to say when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.
The GPL states that: You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
So, it seems to me that RMS is criticising Plan 9's lisence for doing exactly the same thing as the GPL does. Can you say hypocrite, Richard?
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:RMS is being unfair (Score:5, Informative)
Fine. So, as an end user, I can download Linux, fuck around with the source, only release the binary, and claim that I never accepted the GPL? If one isn't required to accept the GPL, then the license is legally impotent.
Fundamental misunderstanding. Here, I'll try and straighten things out.
You, as you, can download Linux, "fuck around" with the source, and use it to your heart's content. Nothing in copyright law allows the original authors to stop you from doing this.
However, the instant you start giving copies to other people, you move into the realm of copyright infringement. The only thing that allows you to distribute copies is the GPL, which means you either distribute by its terms or don't distribute at all.
So anyone you give a binary of your modified code to can not only request a copy of the source, but redistribute both the source and binary under the terms of the GPL.
Hope that's cleared things up a little. Note also that derivative work, as used by the GPL (as in, what it applies to) isn't defined by the GPL or FSF. That's a copyright law issue. If you have problems with what is and isn't a derivative work, don't take them up with the FSF. Take them up with the government.
Re:RMS is being unfair (Score:2)
It seems to me if you took a book and rewrote it and printed that out and distribute it, you are in violation of copyright, definately. It would not matter if you claimed you threw your original copy away. You are also in trouble if you xerox the book without modification and distribute that, even if you claim you threw the original away.
However if you took the book, ripped a few pages out, inserted sheets of notes of your own, and gave away or sold that, it seems that you have not violated copyright. This is possibly because it is clear what parts are the original work.
Re:RMS is being unfair (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:RMS is being unfair (Score:2)
The Plan 9 license requires acceptance of the license to get the code. A small distinction, and honestly not one I think it's worth getting upset over, but I don't think RMS is being hypocritical.
Re:RMS is being unfair (Score:2)
The GPL on the other hand is a contract beween the copyright holder and all the people taking advantage of the rights granted by the GPL --- there are no contracts needed between the users and distributors.
Only when you take advantage of the rights granted by the GPL (modification and/or distribution) is there a need for a contract to exist. So there is no contract needed for you to download the software, and use it.
The person that owns the server you downloaded it from would be bound by the GPL, because they are distributing (unless they're the copyright holder), but you would not, until you modify or distribute the code.
RMS's first point (Score:5, Insightful)
From the license:
You agree to provide the Original Contributor, at its request, with a copy of the complete Source Code version, Object Code version and related documentation for Modifications created or contributed to by You if used for any purpose.
Stallman's point:
This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right
I'm not 100% sure I see his point. If you make use of the code for any purpose, and Lucent asks you for the changes you made, you have to give it to them. IANAL, but it seems that they just want to be able to see all changes that get made.
The rest of RMS's points make sense, and this clause:
The licenses and rights granted under this Agreement shall terminate automatically if (i) You fail to comply with all of the terms and conditions herein; or (ii) You initiate or participate in any intellectual property action against Original Contributor and/or another Contributor.
is truly awful. See the link from Nathan Myers for a well written explanation of just how bad this is.
Re:RMS's first point (Score:2)
If you write something for completely personal use that falls under the license, why should Lucent have any rights to it? What if your changes turn out to be dangerous or highly embarassing?
This clause basically gives Lucent rights to a seach warrant on your development machine. Keep software companies out of my computer. That's what I ask.
my response to RMS' response on the licence (Score:3, Insightful)
It is unacceptable for a license to require compliance with US export control regulations. Laws being what they are, these regulations apply in certain situations regardless of whether they are mentioned in a license; however, requiring them as a license condition can extend their reach to people and activities outside the US government's jurisdiction, and that is definitely wrong. The Export Administration Regulations refer to export from the US. So, if you're not in the US, and aren't exporting from the US, this term simplifies to, "Space intentionally left blank". Anyone who dislikes this term should take things up with the US government, not Lucent. Lucent just doesn't want to get in trouble with the .gov.
I'm no font nerd, but I imagine the group creating the software are completely unrelated to the creators of the font. Also, aside from the fact that code and font data can both be stored on a computer, what has the GPL got to do with copyright terms on fonts? IANAL, but if you sell something for profit (say you're Boeing selling an aeroplane) which uses components from another manufacturer (say Rolls Royce), then your client doesn't sue Rolls Royce if the plane falls out of the sky, but Boeing. If ya don't like it, put in a NO WARRANTIES clause. What software doesn't? Errr, "contributors shall have". That's any contributor. Not just Lucent. Which is exactly what the GPL provides, no?Re:my response to RMS' response on the licence (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't recall a "basic human right" being the right to modify code without releasing it.
It is quite a basic right to be able to buy or download something and use it in the privacy of your home or business without having to explain how you are using it. If you buy a server and add RAM you don't have to demonstrate your changes to the computer maker, you don't have to send them blueprints, and you don't have to allow an agent of the computer maker into your home to inspect your computer. We enjoy this "right" with most things we buy, but not necessarily with software, so I can see where Stallman is coming from.
Does my licence to use GPL-licensed software end if I break the terms of the GPL? It certainly should! I don't want anyone using my GPL-licensed software if they're not following the terms of the GPL.
The GPL covers distribution, not usage. In fact it's up for debate whether a license can or should limit your use of the code.
I think Stallman's claims are nit-picky but valid. But if you are taken into court over this license, I guarantee the lawyers and judges will be reading this license just as carefully if not more so than Stallman did, so if nothing else, I appreciate him uncovering these possible problems.
Re:my response to RMS' response on the licence (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't recall a "basic human right" being the right to modify code without releasing it. Surely this is more free than the GNU licence, which enables a company to use and modify GPL code as much as they want, and profit from it, without releasing the modifications, as long as they are only using the code internally.
So I decide to hack plan-9 on my PERSONAL laptop to investigate some security techniques that I may want to patent. I have to submit these hacks to the Plan-9 guys even if I decide to abandon the project or move it to Linux.
In fact, I like this term, if I put it in a licence it would stop people even trying to make money off of my software by using their heavy marketing machine (which I might not have). If I'm not selling my work for profit, you're certainly not going to!
Why not? Isn't the goal of releasing open source software to get it into as many hands as possible? Do you think that Linus is offended that Red Hat has taken Linux into the business world by selling them copies?
Does my licence to use GPL-licensed software end if I break the terms of the GPL? It certainly should! I don't want anyone using my GPL-licensed software if they're not following the terms of the GPL.
No. The GPL is not a EULA. It is a *redistribution license*. The GPL *never* prevents someone from using software and it isn't even clear whether such a provision would be legal in practice. Using stuff is a basic human right. Redistributing stuff is restricted by copyright law.
Errr, "contributors shall have". That's any contributor. Not just Lucent. Which is exactly what the GPL provides, no?
No, the GPL gives no special rights to contributors. Anyhow, Lucent and other BigCo's are likely to always be the only contributors. You could contribute a patch without becoming a "contributor" if you sign over your rights to it. This is, of course, what their lawyers will require!
If you don't know much about the GPL or really understand the issue why did you feel the need to do a point-by-point rebuttal?
Re:my response to RMS' response on the licence (Score:2)
Not much.. RMS is criticising the fact that the Lucida etc. fonts included with Plan 9 aren't free/open source/whatever and can't be modified, redistributed etc. I suppose this may make re-distribution of the Plan 9 OS a bit difficult, as in the screenshot here [bell-labs.com], Lucida seems to be used quite extensively in the windowing system.
just nits (Score:2)
I'm not sure what's wrong at the end of the day with a retaliation clause -- such an idea might profit free software products. Imagine if suing someone for infringing a patent by distributing open source software required a company to retask all its servers to use new proprietary systems software.
RMS also complains about the clause requiring commercial distributions to indemnify the supplier as wrongful because it is "quite obnoxious" to require users to indemnify. That clause doesn't apply to users, of course, but only to commercial contributors.
Re:just nits (Score:2)
Yeah, well I never expected FreeSoftware-friendliness from the slashdot crowd.
OTOH unlike you I read through the license for myself, and found the point about "why include the US export restrictions in the license itself?" truly obnoxious as well. In fact, I also refuse to regard it open-source (as it's discriminatory against specific countries), let alone Free, until there's a non-US version with a sensible license (gpl/bsd/apache/whatever, but not the current crock).
I for one, am quite pleased (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I for one, am quite pleased (Score:2)
I'm Confused (Score:2)
RMS doesn't like this section. How does this differ from GPL?
Can I suggest that if Stallman... (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re:Can I suggest that if Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can I suggest that if Stallman... (Score:3, Insightful)
I may or may not agree with him, but I agree that he has a right to put his opinion on his organization's website.
Re:Can I suggest that if Stallman... (Score:3, Informative)
---
Date: Mon, 12 Jun 2000 20:42:45 -0600 (MDT)
From: Richard Stallman
To: presotto@plan9.bell-labs.com
Subject: Plan Nine deep-sixed by non-free license
Reply-to: rms@gnu.org
I was excited to hear that Plan Nine might become free software, but it turns out that the license is too restrictive to qualify. We will have to urge people not to use the Plan Nine software under its present license.
---
that said, you can now possibly see the point in my original comment. and no, i'm not dave presotto, i'm quoting this out of comp.os.plan9, where people like you often visit to share their views of what's free software and what's not.
Re:Can I suggest that if Stallman... (Score:2, Informative)
What's your problem with that?
Plan 9 License (Score:3, Informative)
The "agree to provide" clause no longer says "if used for any purpose" but rather "if distributed in any form, e.g., binary or source". This is basically what the GPL does too.
The "reasonable charge" clause is followed by a sentence that says you can charge whatever you want for products or services you've added.
VSTa (Score:2, Interesting)
gotta love slashdot (Score:2, Insightful)
Whatever happened to Brazil? (Score:2)
Interesting question (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Interesting question (Score:2)
For each process one creates a namespace (possibly inheriting the one from the parent process)
All file and resource access is through the 9P (now 9P2000) protocol, one writes 9P servers to provide a namespace, for instance KFS provides access to the files stored on the local terminal, yesterday provides access to the backups.
One builds up, per process, the namespace for that process (and optionally inheriting that of it's parent).
So, for instance, at boot one would mount KFS to give access to the local disc, #AUX to give access to the VGA card, #A to give access to the sound card, and maybe run ftpfs to mount a remote ftp site.
processes can then manipulate this files using the expected
echo 'hello remote ftp' >
This has the benefit of taking the complexity out of my applications and into the 9P library so I can place my trust in the authors of 9P and get on with the important work of solving my problem and not battling with protocols.
I hope this goes some way tro answering your question.
M
Re:it is sad (Score:3, Insightful)
And who is this 'we' you mentioned? I respect RMS and I listen to what he has to say (which doesn't imply that I always agree).
You're the pathetic one here.
Re:it is sad (Score:2)
I think his comments can be summarized as any license RMS has not written, RMS does not consider free. So therefore, it is hard to respect his opinion on other licenses. Particuarly when his criticisms in this case are rather poorly defendable. GPL is great and all, but its not the most appropriate license for everything. If someone doesn't want to release their software under it, then respect that fact, do use it if you don't like it, but don't bitch.
Re:it is sad (Score:2)
Re:it is sad (Score:4, Insightful)
No, RMS considers any license that satisfies a few logical points (listed here [gnu.org]) to be a free license. Notably, Public Domain, XFree86 licensed and Copylefted software is considered Free Software (in addition to GPLed software). There are few licenses that meet that requirement, and he generally has critical views of aspects of them (generally in loopholes) - but then, he has critical views of the current GPL for the same reason. That's why there's a version associated with it. :)
--
Evan
Re:two plan 9s... (Score:2)
Re:neat idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:neat idea (Score:2)
Bell-Labs for one
It's used in some of Lucents telephone products too.
With no Office Suite or even a web browser it's nto going to jump onto many people's desktop any day soon.
But I use it as my working environment, it has native python and perl as well as it's own C and shell (rc).
It's very groovy
particularly the plumber, forget file associations, the plumber uses regular expressions to decide what to run. Select some text (in *any* application) send it to the plumber and based onDjår rules it will do as you say. Very powerful
HEAR HEAR! (Score:2)
But I've read through the comments all the way down into the unmoderated zone and the vast majority are trolling, whining and bitching about the license or RMS. Isnt this supposed to be news for nerds, when did it become an asbestos arena for armchair ip lawyers?
Re:RMS in ignorant kneekerk reaction: News at 11 (Score:2)
God, I wish I had modpoints so I could mod that up. +5, Insightful, I think would be worthy of this comment. RMS is a stuck up tosser who thinks the world should be run how he sees fit. He's never really worked for a living in the real world, and would get a MAJOR come-uppance if he ever had to. If I were Lucent, I'd tell him to fuck right off. Then again, I'd tell him that anyway if he came round here telling me how to do my job.