Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Plan9 is now Officially Open Source 399

DrSkwid writes "The OSI have approved the revised license for the plan 9 operating system according to attendees returning from this year's Usenix Bof."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Plan9 is now Officially Open Source

Comments Filter:
  • by rkz ( 667993 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:24AM (#6222314) Homepage Journal
    How long until SCO claim that SCO IP was stolen and put into plan9?
  • Movie (Score:2, Funny)

    by Jack Comics ( 631233 ) *
    So, is this operating system from outer space as well?
  • Cult? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bame Flait ( 672982 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:28AM (#6222357)
    this year's Usenix Bof

    Usenix Bof? Sounds like what happens when a bunch of greasy, miserable nerds decide to play doctor in the server room.
  • More information (Score:5, Informative)

    by PhysicsGenius ( 565228 ) <.physics_seeker. .at. .yahoo.com.> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:30AM (#6222385)
    Screenshot [bell-labs.com]
    Latest release notes [bell-labs.com]
    Download the source [bell-labs.com] (Warning: requires identification--privacy advocates maybe be excluded here)

    This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

    • Re:More information (Score:2, Informative)

      by kamukwam ( 652361 )
      Sorry but your links return the message : Document contains no data.
    • by FreeUser ( 11483 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:12AM (#6222768)
      This is really great news for Linux. For too long we've been trapped in the out-moded hierarchical/graphical paradigm. Plan 9, with its revolutionary "factotum" and "secstore" structures, could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

      While it is nice that the new license conforms to the requirements of the Open Source folks, that does not mean it is compatible with the GNU General Public License (GPL) under which Linux is written. Indeed, not even all free software licenses are compatibel with the GPL (though the vast majority certainly are), and as yet I have not been able to find any commentary from the FSF on whether the modified license qualifies as "free", much less is GPL compatible (the old one certainly wasn't, as RMSes comments posted to this thread quite definitely explain).

      So, before getting too excited about Plan 9's potential contribution to Linux, we need to first find out whether or not the licenses are even compatible, so that code can be shared between the two projects.
    • Plan 9 ... could really provide a breadth of fresh hair to the Linux kernal, putting it head and shoulders above Windows.

      Most Unix geeks already have a large enough breadth of hair, although freshening it once in a while would be a good idea, as would the use of Head and Shoulders.

      Thanks, folks, I'll be here all week.

    • The look of the screenshot reminds me of Squeak more than anything else. That's not necessarily bad (and, of course, the screenshot is just eye-candy).

      Every new Open Source OS is a benefit. Just consider the current SCO imbroglio. Well, for this one the *BSDs provide a storm shelter for the worst case scenario. They aren't my choice of an OS, but it's comforting to know that they're there.

      Likewise, the Hurd is coming along. It will provide an additional measure of security, as it derives from differe
    • by mickwd ( 196449 )
      Very well trolled. Especially the bit about "hair" and "head and shoulders".

      And you managed to fit in the word "paradigm", too.
  • Plan 9? (Score:4, Funny)

    by micromoog ( 206608 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:31AM (#6222390)
    What is Plan 9, anyway? All I could gather from the website before it was slashdotted into oblivion is that their logo is really fucking cute.
    • Re:Plan 9? (Score:4, Informative)

      by BJZQ8 ( 644168 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:34AM (#6222425) Homepage Journal
      So far as I have experience, Plan 9 is the way computers will all be run, someday at least. With everybody having a 50 THz machine on their desktop, obviously everybody doesn't need that speed at once. So if your neighbor that just browses the web doesn't need his CPU cycles, you can use his for your Doom XXVII game. If he needs some, your computer can give them to him. Obviously there are big latency and permissions issues to be solved, but it is very good in principle.
      • Re:Plan 9? (Score:3, Insightful)

        I don't particularly like the concept of my computer being part of some massive hive-mind. All it takes is one [cr|h]acker to kill all the PCs in the world.

        the Plan 9 approach seems useful for stuff that needs extreme abstraction of resources, but exactly what needs that? At that level you need to have access to the guts.
      • Re:Plan 9? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by spitzak ( 4019 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @02:26PM (#6225379) Homepage
        Far more important than the distributed processing is the "everything is a file" method of accessing all information outside of a process.

        This is a huge deal, it is a real object-oriented system interface. All these proponents of COM and Corba and .net and all that other wannabe stuff should pay attention: "object oriented" is meaningless unless the "methods" match between the objects so they can be substituted for each other. Plan9 does this (so did original Unix before they added ioctl and sockets). In Plan9 all objects have "read" and "write" methods (and a few others) and can be reused. Now some people will scoff and say that that is not the type of methods they want on their objects, but they fail to realize that if they build their methods atop these they will be able to reuse any of the base objects. The files also provide a usable method of copying an object from one point to another that respects the actual size of these objects and the fact that executable code typically does not work on any machine other than the one it was supposed to be on.

    • by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:56AM (#6222635)
      It extends the "everything is a file" paradigm to it's proper conclusion and gets rid of root.

      Will it take over the world and replace Unix? No but it has a lot of very good ideas which can help direct future Linux and Unix development.

    • Re:Plan 9? (Score:5, Informative)

      by William Tanksley ( 1752 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:13AM (#6222784)
      It's Bell Lab's design for the successor to Unix, learning from Unix's successes and failures.

      Instead of everything being a file, everything's a file system. Instead of processes communicating through pipes, everything communicates through plumbing (like a cross between pipes and an email system).

      It's tiny, coherent, and elegant. I really hope we see more of it.

      -Billy
    • Well, Plan 9 was the plan to use the dead, bring them back to life and then try to rule the world that way. Either that, or its just Tor Johnson sputtering out unintelligable lines and Vampira insisting on not speaking and a not-so-look-alike playing Bella making one of the finest films in recent memory.

      Oh wait, you were asking about the OS?

  • Plan9 is really cool (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:31AM (#6222391)
    It is sooo coool. It is more than just a typical OS. Is is a distributed OS. Really. Not a cluster like you often think about. Before you look at the screen shots and say "boy, that looks crappy", read the design.
  • DAMMIT (Score:5, Funny)

    by hatrisc ( 555862 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:32AM (#6222407) Homepage
    dammit.. another operating system to try out.... and only 2 computers.
  • excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Boromir son of Faram ( 645464 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:33AM (#6222417) Homepage
    This is great news for the Open Source community. While Plan9 is often rediculed as being outdated, it no doubt has its share of novel and useful algorithms, which may now be incorporated into more mainstream open source OSes such as Linux and the HURD (yes, it's still around).

    Open sourcing OS code has proven to be a good way to keep ailing systems relevant in the current marketplace. It kept BeOS and VMS from dying in obscurity, and even helped BSD limp along for a few more years.

    I predict nothing but good things from GNU/Plan9. Hopefully Debian will introduce a Plan9 distro, to go with their Darwin, HURD, and Linux distrii. I still have a few spare boxen lying around that I could use this on.
    • Open sourcing OS code has proven to be a good way to keep ailing systems relevant in the current marketplace. It kept BeOS and VMS from dying in obscurity

      What are you talking about? BeOS and VMS were never open sourced.
    • While Plan9 is often rediculed as being outdated, it no doubt has its share of novel and useful algorithms, which may now be incorporated into more mainstream open source OSes such as Linux

      You know, that's one of the problems I have with the Linux/Open Source movement. Everything is just fodder for rape and pillage. Failed/abondoned OSes/Games/whatever are just resources to be picked through and glommed onto Linux, like the junked robots from A.I.

  • It has a lot of really cool concepts in it, so I am hoping to see it grow. What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux and Unix and some of the "theming" made it over to Plan 9. :)
    • Well acme looks a bit like emacs, ie tile based. And Linux has already stolen the proc filing system from Plan9, I guess some more could be brought across in concept, if not in code.
      • Re:I tried Plan 9 (Score:4, Interesting)

        by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @11:28AM (#6223538) Homepage

        There's occasionally talk on LKML of using 9P, the universal Plan9 protocol, in Linux.

        9P is the filing protocol, but *everything* in Plan9 is a file, so it's a universal protocol. It allows you to do things like nest devince namespaces, so you can have windowing systems inside windowing systems without any extra work.
    • Re:I tried Plan 9 (Score:4, Informative)

      by nickos ( 91443 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:30AM (#6222977)
      "What would really be cool is if some of the GUI concepts made it over to Linux..."

      They already have. Have a look at these:
      9wm [plig.org] - a window manger that acts like 8 1/2 from Plan 9
      Wily [yorku.ca] - a clone of Plan 9s programmers editor, Acme (v cool)
      There's also WindowLab [freshmeat.net], another window manager which uses the same window resizing system as Plan 9.

      I'm sure there's more that I don't know of...
    • I don't know about you, but as for me the look-n-feel of P9 UI seems a step backward. It reminds me X11 of early 90's. It might be a step forward for former TTY people (who stuck to late 70's), but I afraid there is no many TTY people left around. People today compare OSX vs GNOME vs KDE vs XP.
  • by will_die ( 586523 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:35AM (#6222441) Homepage
    With TRON [slashdot.org] and now Plan 9 falling into the hands of OSS the move to have the operating systems of computers taken over by old sci-fi movies is happening.
    • With TRON and now Plan 9 falling into the hands of OSS the move to have the operating systems of computers taken over by old sci-fi movies is happening.

      Note to self: do not use WOPR operating system for anything. Especially games.
  • by drgroove ( 631550 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:36AM (#6222446)
    Is the fact that, while the entire OS was mapped around Dennis Ritchie's involvement, he died halfway through the making of the OS.

    Eventually, a bad double - in the form of the CEO's dentist - was brought in to replace Ritchie - the result being that the first half of the Plan9 OS is decent, but the last half is just terrible.

    Oh, and it turns out that the CEO is a cross-dressing lunatic, whose obsession with C-grade OSes (like BeOS, NetBSD, NeXT, Apple OS9, OS2 Warp, etc) eventually led to him living out the rest of his life if relative obscurity and poverty. Sad, really... but, it might make a decent movie... nah.
  • RMS oked as well? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by the morgawr ( 670303 )
    Does this make plan 9 GPL Compatible now?

    Although the intent does not conflict with the GPL I think the requirment of commercial distributors to defend contributors against certain suits might be a show stopper beacause of how it's written. But IANAL; can someone comment on this?

    • Think BSD.
    • Firstly, RMS holds no position of legal authority. He's an expert on licensing issues by now, and I'd be interested in his opinion, but that's all -- we don't need to wait for him.

      Since if meets the OSD, it surely also meets the FSD (they're virtually identical) and the FSF will probably acknowledge it soon.

      GPL code clearly can not be included into plan9 (except by dual-license, of course)

      Plan9 code (I think) can be included into a GPLed word (such as linux). The relevant provision is "Distributor may

  • this license is (Score:2, Informative)

    by jdew ( 644405 )
    crap. it prevents you from exporting to NORTH KOREA. is also REQUIRES you to legally defend the people you sell/give it to from any lawsuits based on said product..

    in summary..
    it is not open source, it is a TRAP
  • excellent news (Score:4, Interesting)

    by jacquesm ( 154384 ) <`j' `at' `ww.com'> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:37AM (#6222459) Homepage
    After the QNX thread a bit ago, this is probably the best news possible. Plan 9 is a nicely evolved version of UNIX, it is very scaleable, and 'orthogonal' (you can run a new version of the window manager in a window in the old one!).

    If there ever was a viable alternative to the monolithic unices then Plan 9 is probably it.

    Macro kernels are pretty much like turtles and sharks, very well adapted to living today, but dinosaurs nonetheless. Let's give this one the attention it deserves and see how it stacks up against the 'hurd', time to evolve !
    • Plan 9 is not UNIX and doesn't want to be associated with it.

      Micro vs macro kernel wars were held in the early nineties. Nobody won, macrokernels came ahead slightly.

      Plan 9 has not been tested for scalability.
      • Re:excellent news (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jacquesm ( 154384 )
        plan 9 is a computer program and as such does not have a 'will' or a 'want'.

        The micro-macro debate never ended, it's just that the macro camp has a head start in terms of programmer experience and installed base.

        Plan 9 has not been tested for scaleability outside of it's development lab, but on paper it scales better than anything that is in the marketplace right now, if only because the clustering is built in right at the lowest level.

        The real 'unlock' for microkernels is advances in message passing tec
    • Re:excellent news (Score:3, Interesting)

      by renehollan ( 138013 )
      Macro kernels are pretty much like turtles and sharks, very well adapted to living today, but dinosaurs nonetheless.

      That's one of the more insightful comments I've seen in a long time.

      Personally, I run a Linux kernel, and have worked with both Linux (continue to do so) and FreeBSD professionally, but I always found the idea of a monolithic kernel, you know, somewhat inelegant.

      Notions like the Hurd, for example, therefore, are appealing, in an academic sense, but suffer from the chicken and egg problem

    • Macro kernels are pretty much like turtles and sharks, very well adapted to living today, but dinosaurs nonetheless. Let's give this one the attention it deserves and see how it stacks up against the 'hurd', time to evolve!

      First of all, there's no need to evolve unless there are dramatic changes in your environment. While hardware has become many many times bigger and faster over the three decades of Unix, computer architecture issues (for example, memory hierarchy, CPU scheduling, I/O) have remained most

  • RIT... (Score:3, Informative)

    by BobLenon ( 67838 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:38AM (#6222471) Homepage
    CS [rit.edu] Professors wrote a book about Plan 9. Ive played with the vmware image. Its some cool stuff - though a bit weird in terms of the UI metaphores - but then agian _everything_ is a file.

    Props to my profs Bischof and Schreiner.
  • by Jack William Bell ( 84469 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:40AM (#6222487) Homepage Journal
    My first subject line was 'Cool', but then I changed it. Why? Well, I have been interested in Plan 9 for a long time. I especially like the services-based architecture. In many ways it is a project with an awful lot of potential. But...

    Problem 1: What is it good for? Right now Plan 9 has no compelling applications and a dearth of the applications most people use daily. This might be fixed soon as people port things like OpenOffice to it, but don't hold your breath.

    Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that. Chances are, any truly compelling features in Plan 9 will soon find their way into Linux and even MS Windows.

    Problem 3: Overcoming the installed base. It took Linux nearly ten years to achieve name recognition, and it still is running a distant third on the desktop. What does Plan 9 offer that would make me, or you, want to spend time installing and learning it? Especially considerint Problem 2 and Problem 1.

    Problem 4: Wrong direction. In my opinion the real important projects right now are ones that are removing the distinctions between OSs. Cross platform tools like Python, Chandler, Mono and Mozilla. Using standards-based DHTML as the UI. Why add another platform to the mix when the real goal is to become platform agnostic?

    It all sums up to the same issues that squeak smalltalk has: Everything about it is great, but no-one uses it for anything real.

    Of course all these problems I describe are based on my opinions, needs and preferences. Your mileage may vary. But I be most people's won't...
    • "What is it good for?"

      It's good for shut up the people who yell "OMG stop copying and start innovating dammit!!!" all the time.
    • Answering (Score:2, Insightful)

      by orange_6 ( 320700 )
      Problem 1: What is it good for?
      Problem 3: What does Plan 9 offer that would make me, or you, want to spend time installing and learning it?

      These seem to be the biggest "issues" you propose, which you fully address in your other problem: Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that.

      Many people seem to forget that there are many many many OSs out there that aren't flavors of *nix or Windows which are used for research purposes. There are quite a few which would make great multi-purpo
    • by tuffy ( 10202 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:18AM (#6222845) Homepage Journal
      Problem 4: Wrong direction. In my opinion the real important projects right now are ones that are removing the distinctions between OSs. Cross platform tools like Python, Chandler, Mono and Mozilla. Using standards-based DHTML as the UI. Why add another platform to the mix when the real goal is to become platform agnostic?

      What good is being platform agnostic if all platforms are completely homogenous? Clearly Plan 9 isn't going to take over the world, but that was never the point. What is important is that the best aspects of Plan 9 can be incorperated into existing platforms like Linux and *BSD and generate some real innovation without too much disturbance to the existing software base. Because it sure looks like the deeper innovations coming out of Plan 9 are more helpful to me than the more superficial stuff coming from Gnome/KDE.

    • by F2F ( 11474 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:24AM (#6222915)
      Problem 1: What is it good for? Right now Plan 9 has no compelling applications and a dearth of the applications most people use daily. This might be fixed soon as people port things like OpenOffice to it, but don't hold your breath.

      it's good for research. an antidote to Systems Software Research is Irrelevant [uiuc.edu].

      Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that. Chances are, any truly compelling features in Plan 9 will soon find their way into Linux and even MS Windows.

      Judging by how hard it is to bring Private Namespaces to Linux I can tell you that some of Plan 9's concepts will never make it back to UNIX. Some things in UNIX' design are just too hard to fix -- that's why Bell-Labs started this radical new OS (14 years ago).

      Problem 3: Overcoming the installed base. It took Linux nearly ten years to achieve name recognition, and it still is running a distant third on the desktop. What does Plan 9 offer that would make me, or you, want to spend time installing and learning it? Especially considerint Problem 2 and Problem 1.

      Plan 9 does not want to be a desktop OS but a research one. Its goal is not to crush Microsoft, it simply wants to fix the problems that cannot be easily fixed in UNIX today.

      Problem 4: Wrong direction. In my opinion the real important projects right now are ones that are removing the distinctions between OSs. Cross platform tools like Python, Chandler, Mono and Mozilla. Using standards-based DHTML as the UI. Why add another platform to the mix when the real goal is to become platform agnostic?

      to quote: "That's the good thing about standards -- there's so many to choose from"...

    • Problem 2: It is a research tool, and may never be more than that. Chances are, any truly compelling features in Plan 9 will soon find their way into Linux and even MS Windows.

      This is exactly the reason why projects like Plan9 are a good thing. If everyone concentrated on developing current technologies, the rate of innovation would drop dramatically. Will plan9 ever become a widely used, vastly supported operating system? Probably not, but the beauty of open source is that the advancements made by resear
  • FSF take? (Score:3, Informative)

    by lethe1001 ( 606836 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:43AM (#6222519)
    the FSF has commentary on a variety of open source lisences. according to them, the plan 9 license did not qualify as a free software license, for a variety of reasons, the worst of which is a clause allowing Bell Labs to restrict and revoke your license under certain unreasonable conditions. see this [gnu.org]

    i wonder if this new revised license has fixed any of those problems?

    here is the statement from RMS.

    When I saw the announcement that the Plan 9 software had been released as "open source", I wondered whether it might be free software as well. After studying the license, my conclusion was that it is not free; the license contains several restrictions that are totally unacceptable for the Free Software Movement. (See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.) [slashdot.org]

    I am not a supporter of the Open Source Movement, but I was glad when one of their leaders told me they don't consider the license acceptable either. When the developers of Plan 9 describe it as "open source", they are altering the meaning of that term and thus spreading confusion. (The term "open source" is widely misunderstood; see http://www.gnu.org/gnu/philosophy/free-software-fo r-freedom.html [slashdot.org]

    Here is a list of the problems that I found in the Plan 9 license. Some provisions restrict the Plan 9 software so that it is clearly non-free; others are just extremely obnoxious.

    First, here are the provisions that make the software non-free.

    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.

    This prohibits modifications for private use, denying the users a basic right.

    and may, at Your option, include a reasonable charge for the cost of any media.

    This seems to limit the price that may be charged for an initial distribution, prohibiting selling copies for a profit.

    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,

    This seems to say that when you redistribute you must insist on a contract with the recipients, just as Lucent demands when you download it.

    1. 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.

    This seemed reasonable to me at first glance, but later I realized that it goes too far. A retaliation clause like this would be legitimate if it were limited to patents, but this one is not. It would mean that if Lucent or some other contributor violates the license of your GPL-covered free software package, and you try to enforce that license, you would lose the right to use the Plan 9 code.

    You agree that, if you export or re-export the Licensed Software or any modifications to it, You are responsible for compliance with the United States Export Administration Regulations and hereby indemnify the Original Contributor and all other Contributors for any liability incurred as a result.

    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 wro

    • Re:FSF take? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by the morgawr ( 670303 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:54AM (#6222616) Homepage Journal
      You do know that that's talking about the OLD lisence right? A quick search of the page for those pharses would have told you that.

      It seems that this rewrite was an attempt to address Richard's concerns. That said I think some of these issues may still be valid, but IANAL.

    • RMS != FSF (Score:2, Insightful)

      by SuperDuG ( 134989 )
      I hate to get real anal here, but one man's opinion is not always that of an entire group or foundation.

      RMS has on many occassions been a complete idiot and anyone who would have looked into the new license or even the freeking headline, would have seen that the issue of it being truly open is in fact true.

      OpenSource != FreeSoftware, but OpenSource does bring more freedom, odd isn't it?

      GNU is old school ... OSI is new school ... lets get together and change our collective phiolosophies.

    • Re:FSF take? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Redline ( 933 )
      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.

      This has been changed:
      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 distributed in any form, e.g., binary or
      • Re:FSF take? (Score:3, Interesting)

        Agreed. The changes are enough that most Free Software types will probably be comfortable. However, that last issue:

        "Contributors shall have unrestricted, nonexclusive, worldwide, perpetual, royalty-free rights, to use, reproduce, modify, display, perform, sublicense and distribute Your Modifications, and to grant third parties the right to do so, including without limitation as a part of or with the Licensed Software;"

        Definitely means that this isn't GPL compatible. Sure, a copyright owner can do whateve
  • Was the Plan9 license ever changed? I know for a while the FSF had a page listing the reasons why they don't consider Plan 9 a "free" OS regardless of the openess of it's source (blah blah, difference between open and free, blah blah, speech, blah blah, gratis).

    I think it'd be really great if Plan9 were released under a more "free" license.

    ...so basically I'm too lazy to use the internet to answer my questions... please find answers for me slashdot!
    • their new license is BSD-like, with a few 'don't sue us or the contributors' clauses sprinkled about.
    • I am no expert but it is pretty damned free it would seem.

      It denies liability.

      It allows you to modify the liscence if you're new liscence meets the requirements.

      It makes you grant the rights to any patanted tech you incluede

      It lets you redistribute.

      The catches I see are
      1) in a "conspicous place" in your program you must add a copyright Lucent and others tag
      2) if you distribute it commercially you must protect the contributers from damages against any claims you make (The way I understood it is if you s
    • Slashdot did answer your question, if you'd take enough care to read the blurb that's there. This is the revised license, not the original.

      From reading it, it appears to be Debian Free Software Guidelines compliant also, or at least that's my interpretation. I'm pretty sure that the old license required you to either assign copyright of your work to Lucent, or send them changes (or both), but it's been years since I read the original Plan9 license.
  • Powered by Plan 9? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by randomErr ( 172078 ) <ervin,kosch&gmail,com> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @09:50AM (#6222579) Homepage Journal
    Is the site powered by Plan 9? I wonder because it seems to have been suffering from the /. effect.
  • by dargaud ( 518470 ) * <slashdot2 AT gdargaud DOT net> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:22AM (#6222879) Homepage
    While researching cluster software for my current project [gdargaud.net], I read some whitepapers showing the differences between Plan 9, Beowulf, Mosix and others [sourceforge.net]. I recommend that read.
  • by leoboiko ( 462141 ) <.moc.liamg. .ta. .okioboel.> on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:22AM (#6222886) Homepage

    These news are funny when Slashdot's poll is "Worst Sci-Fi Movie Ever [slashdot.org]".

    ESR has some info on Plan9 [catb.org] OS, wich include this footnote:

    The name is a tribute to the 1958 movie that has passed into legend as âoethe worst ever madeâ, Plan 9 from Outer Space. The legend is, unfortunately, incorrect, as the few who have seen an even worse stinkeroo from 1966 called Manos: the Hands of Fate can attest.
  • Plan 9 Wiki (Score:4, Informative)

    by Chalst ( 57653 ) on Tuesday June 17, 2003 @10:27AM (#6222949) Homepage Journal
    Very nice. Shame my laptop won't work with Plan-9, I was tempted to put a copy on it.

    If you found the Plan-9 FAQ but saw the URL to the Plan-9 wiki was broken, try http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/plan_9_wiki/ [bell-labs.com].
  • by Anonymous Coward

    everything in UNIX is modelled as a "file", whereas in Plan9 everything is modelled after a "burrito"

    UNIX makes extensive use of the commandline and pipe metaphor, while Plan9 has a chaw spitbucket metaphor.

    UNIX programmers are very wealthy and considered to be generally cool by all, whereas Plan9 programmers generally only are popular with other Plan9 programmers. This leads to inbreeding and other nasty stuff which is why AT&T was forced to put a stop to it.

  • I'm going to sound like a flamebait, but whatever.

    Personally, I think it's great that software is Open Source by OSI's definition, but 9 times of 10 I prefer Free Software [gnu.org] over Open Source.

Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing. -- Wernher von Braun

Working...