[9fans] Plan 9 future
G. David Butler
the discussions of Plan 9 functionality in Linux) I would like to
continue the discussion of commercial use and other things.
=======================================================================
Jim Choate <rav...@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
>Where do I buy a license?
That is the question I hope we have an answer to before too long.
>I'll be working on an anonymous remailer and the replacement of DES as the
>default encryption mechanism.
Yes it would seem that an MD5 hash would be more exportable and secure.
=======================================================================
Lucio De Re <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>As for code-sharing, it is restricted to the elite that acquired
>the licence in the first place (does Tom Duff have a licenced copy,
>or an exemption? :-) :-)
I think I might have an answer to that... read on.
> (c) it must be possible,
>nay, easy, to contribute to the code base, as many in this forum
>have demonstrated, nothing like public recognition to encourage
>more contributions. Am I repeating the lesson in Eric Raymond's
>"The cathedral and the Bazaar?"
Yes, that is the lesson. The process and motivation for creating
software is changing. How can we leverage this change to promote
Plan 9?
>Personally, I'd like to see a BSD-style licence, even with Lucent
>getting a cut. Or GDB, for that matter. I guess we should discuss
>that option too.
Since Lucent has licensed Plan 9 to several entities, I doubt we
will see a BSD style license. Lucent will, and should, get a cut
since we (at least I) appreciate them funding the work of Bell Labs.
The question is just how and how much. Should I? I would like to,
but I bet I'd only get it by investing in Lucent stock.
>> >On the other hand, setting up a CVS repository and assigning one
>> >staff member to moderate source updates would, in my opinion, be
>> >considerably simpler and hopefully within a moderate budget. In
>> >return, Bell Labs would get both feedback and improvements well in
>> >excess of their investment.
I like this idea. Perhaps they would, too.
> probably because the Plan 9 philosophy has
>gotten to me, right under my skin. Don't underestimate the religious
>value _that_ may have.
I'm betting on it.
> I agree wholeheartedly with you that commercial use is
>a necessity, I just hope it does not cloud the issue to the point
>where _only_ commercial use is viable.
I agree! The commercial use issue is only important to me because
I need to know I can use the tools I have invested in and am
comfortable with to solve problems in any setting.
>Well, you made at least one friend or convert - does that make me
>a sado-masochist?
Thanks, and I surely hope not as I'm working to convert many more!
>I guess I may as well ask here: Do you need a very enthusiastic
>software engineer with lots of experience (read "old") and some
>rather old-fashioned views?
Just the way I like them! Be careful what you wish for...
=======================================================================
Richard Uhtenwoldt <r...@ohio.river.org> wrote:
>summary: the lifting of the no-commercial-use provision would prove
>a major win, but what you end up with is still not as good as
>an open-source license, from my point of view.
I don't know, I may have a better idea, but I'll let you decide.
>"we do it all the time" is not a guarantee that Plan 9's owner will not
>interfere with your doing it in the future. worse: Plan 9's owner can
>probably prevent you from continuing to distribute improvements we have
>already made.
Yes, that is true. But it would not be possible for anyone that has
a redistribution license.
>licensees of Unix in the 70s and early 80s exchanged works derived from
>Unix "all the time", the most famous such distribution being BSD. after
>Unix had become commercially important and the regulations that prevented
>them from entering the computing market were lifted, ATT changed their
>attitude toward this practice, with the result that BSD entered legal
>limbo for years, during which time it was unclear whether BSD was legal
>to use or whether BSD had a future. today Linux has 10 times the number
>of users as BSD, and commentators other than I have cited the period of
>legal limbo as a reason.
My understanding is that Berkeley had a license much like the shrinkwrap
one we have now. It allows the sharing of code with other licensees.
The BSD problem could have been easily solved by someone purchasing a
redistribution license and going into that business. When BSDI went
into business commercially selling BSD, they tried to do it without
giving AT&T its due and got sued. Big surprise! The resolution of
the lawsuit took proving that the code had no AT&T content. This is
the same problem the free BSD's had. They had to start over with
BSD-Lite.
>can anyone read the current shrinkwrap license for Plan 9 and assure me
>that if I were to invest my time modifying Plan 9 that I would
>always be able to make those changes (in the form of modified source
>code or diff or boodle) available on the Web or via FTP? I do not think
>so because even diffs and boodles are considered by our courts to be
>derived works.
You are correct. This is a problem I've been lamenting about for years.
The developers at Bell Labs have always said that it was OK to do exactly
that, but as I understand the license, you should verify that the recpient
has a valid license before you distribute any code unless is has NO
licensed content.
>
>the reply that if my changes are any good then Plan 9's owner will
>incorporate them into future versions of Plan 9 will not assuage me, for
>it lets the owner capture too much of my work: I do not despise the
>profit motive and I do not flinch from paying Plan 9's $350 price, but I
>do not think it is good for my society for me to choose to devote my
>creativity and mental energy in ways that can be "captured" by
>profit-motivated businessmen and lawyers (or power-motivated
>politicians, btw).
So just how much did you or most other Linux contributors make on the
Red Hat IPO?
=======================================================================
So, I would like to propose the idea of _The Plan 9 Club_.
A member of the Club would have the following benefits:
Access to the source (even the shrinkwrap license allows this).
(Remember, only Lucent has source distribution rights.)
Access to repositories of bug fixes and enhancements coordinated
by the Club. (It is important to have these separate as the Club
would have an obligation to return bug fixes to Lucent, but not
enhancements.)
Access to documentation, training and support.
Access to commercial use sublicenses.
To become a member you would have to agree to the terms of the
associated licenses and pay (hopefully trivial) dues either yearly
or monthly. Dues would fund the repostories and the support
elements of the Club. Sublicenses would involve additional fees.
Now, here are some questions for us all:
How should the Club be governed?
Would members be compensated for their code contributions? How?
Should the club allow resellers? What would happen to a commercial
sublicense if the owner of the sublicense is not a member?
Should there be different classes of membership?
How would members share in the ownership of the Club?!!!
Long Live Plan 9!
David Butler
g...@dbSystems.com
Lucio De Re
properly so early in the morning. And I'm quite excited, to boot :-)
On Wed, May 10, 2000 at 11:19:20PM +0000, G. David Butler wrote:
>
> So, I would like to propose the idea of _The Plan 9 Club_.
>
> A member of the Club would have the following benefits:
>
Count me in.
> Access to the source (even the shrinkwrap license allows this).
> (Remember, only Lucent has source distribution rights.)
>
> Access to repositories of bug fixes and enhancements coordinated
> by the Club. (It is important to have these separate as the Club
> would have an obligation to return bug fixes to Lucent, but not
> enhancements.)
>
> Access to documentation, training and support.
>
> Access to commercial use sublicenses.
>
I wonder if drawing a line at this point would not give us additional
scope. Membership up to, but not including this point would be,
tentatively, implicit in being on a mailing list, whereas this
access may require a subscription fee. Just a suggestion, I'm not
sure how practical it may be. Access to the source would have to
include some official acceptance of the shrink-wrap licence, as
you mentioned below.
I guess the mailing list may have to be restricted, with no gatewaying
to NetNews, and I would prefer not to have such a restriction.
>
> To become a member you would have to agree to the terms of the
> associated licenses and pay (hopefully trivial) dues either yearly
> or monthly. Dues would fund the repostories and the support
> elements of the Club. Sublicenses would involve additional fees.
>
Perfectly natural, I approve of fees as indication of intent, as
a CVS-like repository would be pretty inexpensive to run.
>
> Now, here are some questions for us all:
>
> How should the Club be governed?
>
A board of trustees. It's the only mechanism I have come across
that eliminates vested interests :-) But it is only a semi-serious
suggestion, it may be too complex for the purpose.
> Would members be compensated for their code contributions? How?
>
Too difficult to do by default. Members may ask for compensation
and refrain from providing the contribution, so it would be desirable
to have some funds for such, but once it's paid for, a contribution
would have to be generally available (no licence or copyright
issues, without preventing legitimate intellectual property protection
where the contributor feels a need - an expiry date would be nice,
but may be too complex yet again).
> Should the club allow resellers? What would happen to a commercial
> sublicense if the owner of the sublicense is not a member?
>
Hm. That's a valid reservation. Is it practical to prevent reselling?
Can reselling be redirected to the Club? Is this not too onerous and
prone to breaches?
> Should there be different classes of membership?
>
I don't like this, although oragnisations and individuals have
different means for contributions. For ISOC-ZA (the South African
Chapter of the Internet Society) I, as membership official, am
about to propose that we drop organisational/corporate memberships
and call strictly for corporate sponsorship. The sponsorship may
well include a number of individual memberships. I'm happy to
discuss this here, if it helps, and I'd likely take any good
suggestions back to ISOC-ZA too.
> How would members share in the ownership of the Club?!!!
>
That can wait until our IPO, right?! :-) :-) :-)
>
> Long Live Plan 9!
>
Oh, I bet it will!! Thanks, David, you have done well beyond the
call of duty in this, no matter what your claimed objectives may be.
++L
Jim Choate
On Wed, 10 May 2000, G. David Butler wrote:
> After waiting for this thread to idle (and watching with amusement
> the discussions of Plan 9 functionality in Linux) I would like to
> continue the discussion of commercial use and other things.
> Jim Choate <rav...@einstein.ssz.com> wrote:
> >I'll be working on an anonymous remailer and the replacement of DES as the
> >default encryption mechanism.
>
> Yes it would seem that an MD5 hash would be more exportable and secure.
Exportability is moot. Code is speech. The fact that DES is so easily
cracked makes it worthless. The current Plan 9 crypto is worse than
nothing because it fools users without crypto background into a false
sense of security.
> Lucio De Re <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
> Yes, that is the lesson. The process and motivation for creating
> software is changing. How can we leverage this change to promote
> Plan 9?
Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
individual motivations and goals.
> >> >On the other hand, setting up a CVS repository and assigning one
> >> >staff member to moderate source updates would, in my opinion, be
> >> >considerably simpler and hopefully within a moderate budget. In
> >> >return, Bell Labs would get both feedback and improvements well in
> >> >excess of their investment.
>
> I like this idea. Perhaps they would, too.
I hate it. Plan 9 needs to move off of ATT/Lucent/Bell backing and stand
on its own two feet. The Open Source community is more than capable of
managing such code repositories. We don't need parenting or wasting energy
supporting some corporate hegemony.
> Richard Uhtenwoldt <r...@ohio.river.org> wrote:
>
> >summary: the lifting of the no-commercial-use provision would prove
> >a major win, but what you end up with is still not as good as
> >an open-source license, from my point of view.
>
> I don't know, I may have a better idea, but I'll let you decide.
I must throw my vote strongly on the Open Source license format. Anything
else and the potential for abuse or monopolization of the work is simply
too great.
It's one thing to allow commercial use, it's another to create an
environment where that is the primary driving force. Linux works not so
much because it is commercialy viable but because it also recognizes the
contributions of the individual.
> So, I would like to propose the idea of _The Plan 9 Club_.
>
> A member of the Club would have the following benefits:
>
> Access to the source (even the shrinkwrap license allows this).
> (Remember, only Lucent has source distribution rights.)
>
> Access to repositories of bug fixes and enhancements coordinated
> by the Club. (It is important to have these separate as the Club
> would have an obligation to return bug fixes to Lucent, but not
> enhancements.)
>
> Access to documentation, training and support.
>
> Access to commercial use sublicenses.
>
>
> To become a member you would have to agree to the terms of the
> associated licenses and pay (hopefully trivial) dues either yearly
> or monthly. Dues would fund the repostories and the support
> elements of the Club. Sublicenses would involve additional fees.
Yuck. This sounds like an organization intended to commercialy exploit a
resource, not spread it far and wide because 'It's a good idea'.
> Now, here are some questions for us all:
>
> How should the Club be governed?
It shouldn't, at least any more than the current Open Source community is
governed. I must say I'm not one for these heirarchical centralised
systems.
> How would members share in the ownership of the Club?!!!
'Ownership', now that is the flag phrase of the day.
____________________________________________________________________
The future is downloading. Can you hear the impact?
O[rphan] D[rift>]
Cyber Positive
The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate
Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ rav...@ssz.com
www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087
-====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Lucio De Re
>
> Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
> individual motivations and goals.
>
because it is Open Source, but because it has less baggage. In
reality, it is too much of an academic exercise.
Open Source is not an end in itself, nor guarantee of success.
The *BSDs are as much Open Source as Linux and a lot less centrally
controlled, yet they fail to attract as much interest as Linux.
Usability, in a very contrived sense, is the measure today. Plan
9 fails, *BSDs barely pass, Linux is getting closer and the WinXXs
pass with flying colours.
Yet WinXX is no Open Source project.
I would like the comfort of Open Source. Like Jim, I think the
additional freedom will yield good results, but I can also appreciate
the reluctance at Bell Labs to lose the philosophical guidance that
they alone can impart on Plan 9. Or do we merely want another
platform on which to run conventional applications. Why bother
when Linux does it better than any other product.
In summary, Plan 9 is a practical, but academically/theoretically
oriented platform. WinXX is utter pragmatism and Linux is fast
catching up, even though from a different angle. Somewhere in
between are the *BSDs with interesting occasional forays in either
direction.
If I had to put my money anywhere, I'd bet on the Linux?Windows
pragmatism, but my philosophical roots are to deep in academia to
stand by and watch it happen.
As far as I am concerned, David's efforts have my support, and so
does the card hand that Forsythe is holding rather close to his chest.
(There you go, Forsythe, a little wink in your direction :-)
++L
Bengt Kleberg
> vSTA is Open Source. On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only
1 It is VSTa
2 See http://www.zendo.com/vsta
PS Despite the email archive having October 1998 as its last entry there are emails from
April 2000 in there.
Best Wishes, Bengt
===============================================================
Everything aforementioned should be regarded as totally private
opinions, and nothing else. be...@softwell.se
``His great strength is that he is uncompromising. It would make
him physically ill to think of programming in C++.''
Jim Choate
Perhaps I missed something but this responce to my comments seems to
ramble with no clear perspective or point to make.
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Lucio De Re wrote:
> On Thu, May 11, 2000 at 07:44:51AM -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
> >
> > Move the source to Open Source licensing and let people follow their own
> > individual motivations and goals.
> >
> vSTA is Open Source. On paper it is better than Plan 9, not only
> because it is Open Source, but because it has less baggage. In
> reality, it is too much of an academic exercise.
???, talk about a left turn. Couldn't care less about vSTA, whatever that
is...
If you're interested in academic OS'es then Ameoba and Space are about the
only two I'd waste time on.
> Open Source is not an end in itself, nor guarantee of success.
Duh. What has this got to do with anything?
> The *BSDs are as much Open Source as Linux and a lot less centrally
> controlled, yet they fail to attract as much interest as Linux.
For a variety of reasons. The BSD (prior to FreeBSD) license are actualy
more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others as well).
Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD isn't. That counts.
> Usability, in a very contrived sense, is the measure today. Plan
> 9 fails, *BSDs barely pass, Linux is getting closer and the WinXXs
> pass with flying colours.
WinXX's fail miserably with respect to usability, they have a monopoly on
the commercial market and that is why they are succesful. As to Plan 9,
the reason it's not usable is that nobody with two halves of a clue is
going to work on a OS and then have to give some other party rights to the
code. If Plan 9 is to work it must be Open Source.
> Yet WinXX is no Open Source project.
Which is relevant how?
> I would like the comfort of Open Source. Like Jim, I think the
> additional freedom will yield good results, but I can also appreciate
> the reluctance at Bell Labs to lose the philosophical guidance that
> they alone can impart on Plan 9. Or do we merely want another
> platform on which to run conventional applications. Why bother
> when Linux does it better than any other product.
Philosophical smilosophical. Bell/ATT/Lucent doesn't have any interest in
pursuing Plan 9 as a commercial venture. They should conserve their
resources and improve their PR, release Plan 9 Open Source.
Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on 30 year
old technology. Plan 9 however has a much cleaner process and function
model that are more ameniable to distributed networks/functions.
Many of the applications that people do such as word processing and email
will have to have the same fundamental interface irrespective of the
advanced technology they ride on top off. This is a moot point. On the
flip side, many applications such as data havens or true anonymous
remailers for example will never come to fruition so long as we stay on
the Unix (or any non-distributed OS) model.
> In summary, Plan 9 is a practical, but academically/theoretically
> oriented platform. WinXX is utter pragmatism and Linux is fast
> catching up, even though from a different angle. Somewhere in
> between are the *BSDs with interesting occasional forays in either
> direction.
The same could be said about Unix in 1970 with respect to
academic/theoretical. WinXX isn't pragmatic, it's based on incremental
improvement and captured user base. It's a thorougly predatory model.
> If I had to put my money anywhere, I'd bet on the Linux?Windows
> pragmatism, but my philosophical roots are to deep in academia to
> stand by and watch it happen.
Windows is headed toward a much more limited future. If Linux remains the
only significant thoroughly Open Source OS then it will continue to grow.
Greg Hudson
> actualy more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others
> as well). Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD
> isn't. That counts.
You're entitled to your opinion about the license merits, but I don't
think there's any sense in which Linux can be considered more of a
"community project" than the *BSDs.
And while the *BSDs don't have the same magnitude of user base as
Linux, they have thriving developer communities and often acquire
support for new kinds of hardware before Linux does. (USB and ISA
plug and play are good examples.) So while Lucio's argument makes
sense, since he was talking about users rather than developers, your
argument does not.
> Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on
> 30 year old technology.
All good operating system software is based on 30 year old technology.
That's when the good research was done. Plan 9 is no exception.
for...@vitanuova.com
>>only significant thoroughly Open Source OS
>>then it will continue to grow.
yes, i for one certainly expect it to grow.
Jim Choate
On Thu, 11 May 2000, Greg Hudson wrote:
> > For a variety of reasons. The BSD (prior to FreeBSD) license are
> > actualy more restrictive in my view (and apparently a lot of others
> > as well). Linux was a community project from day 1 whereas BSD
> > isn't. That counts.
>
> You're entitled to your opinion about the license merits, but I don't
> think there's any sense in which Linux can be considered more of a
> "community project" than the *BSDs.
Nobody said it was more of a community. BSD did NOT start out as a
community project, it started out as a project of Berkley. Linux started
out as a project of an individual and from day one was Open Sourced. BSD
wishes it could make this claim. It was only when the Chancellors of
Berkley found that their cash cow was going belly up that they decided to
change the license. You mis-represent the flow of history.
The point you miss is that Linux is a free'er license than the more
restrictive BSD license (except for the FreeBSD license which I
specificaly mentioned as an exception).
> And while the *BSDs don't have the same magnitude of user base as
> Linux, they have thriving developer communities and often acquire
> support for new kinds of hardware before Linux does. (USB and ISA
> plug and play are good examples.) So while Lucio's argument makes
> sense, since he was talking about users rather than developers, your
> argument does not.
It's clear you'r a BSD lover (bigot?).
Again misreprensentation. First, developers are users, you draw a false
distinction here. Second, BSD has never had as large a community and if
BDS got access to hardware it was because somebody paid the vendors
licenseing fee (usualy Berkley or a derived authority), it was not
like with Linux where the vendor releases the info Open Source. BSD's
early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.
As to making sense, no accounting for taste.
> > Linux sucks, it's just better than any alternatives. It's based on
> > 30 year old technology.
>
> All good operating system software is based on 30 year old technology.
> That's when the good research was done. Plan 9 is no exception.
Hardly. Plan 9 may have been built by many of the same programmers it was
specificaly designed to address issues that Unix didn't do well or at all.
Very little of the Plan 9 code I've seen looks like it came from a Unix
source tree.
Unix started in 1969 or there abouts, Plan 9 was started in the 80's. So,
Plan 9 can at best be 20 years old. However, I know that the Plan 9 CD has
not been available for 20 years (let alone 30 years as your claim would
imply).
As to 'good' reseach. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
for...@caldo.demon.co.uk
>>early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
>>but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
>>structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.
having lived through that i do not think `a centralised community with a hierarchical
structure' could realistically, or even remotely, describe the BSD arrangement.
unix-like systems have always been reliably chaotic (when not inchoate);
arguably, that was part of the charm. we like a good squabble.
when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
brace styles.
Jim Choate
On Thu, 11 May 2000 for...@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >>like with Linux where the vendor releases the info Open Source. BSD's
> >>early success was not because of a distributed developer/user community
> >>but rather because it was a centralised community with a heirarchical
> >>structure. Again, that's comparing apples and oranges.
>
> having lived through that i do not think `a centralised community with a
> hierarchical structure' could realistically, or even remotely, describe the
> BSD arrangement.
Tell that to the Chancellors of Berkeley who, prior to the FreeBSD
license, owned it all if they chose to express it. They saw it wasn't in
their best interest and let it ride.
It's also worth noting that Berkley didn't loosen their license agreements
until *after* Linux had begun to grow.
As to living through it, I've owned at least one computer since 1976 (I
built my second one from components in '76 as well).
> unix-like systems have always been reliably chaotic (when not inchoate);
> arguably, that was part of the charm. we like a good squabble.
> when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
> brace styles.
Actualy not, when Unix first came out and prior to Berkley and several
others licensing from Bell it was pretty homogenous. Prior to the 80's
there simply weren't that many people programming on Unix (or any other
form of system) that wasn't solely commercial. Comparing the state of
hobby or non-commercial computing prior to about 1980 to that after is
simply unrealistic.
Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.
for...@caldo.demon.co.uk
there! you make my point for me.
Jim Choate
On Thu, 11 May 2000 for...@caldo.demon.co.uk wrote:
> >>Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.
>
> there! you make my point for me.
>
Well, at least we agree you're confused....
dh...@plan9.bell-labs.com
> > >>Brace style is 'C' not 'Unix'.
> >
> > there! you make my point for me.
>
> Well, at least we agree you're confused....
Actually, I don't think Charles' point was that he is confused, but
that you've run out of anything serious to argue about. To quote
his earlier posting:
> when there was nothing serious to argue about we squabbled about
> brace styles.
Hope this helps,
David Hogan
G. David Butler
further amusement the discussions of U*NIX's history; brace
styles, that was good), I would like to continue the discussion
of commercial use of Plan 9.
Even though most of us agree with Jim Choate that an Open Source
model would be the most attractive to everybody except Lucent
stock holders, the reality is that the most we can hope for is
reasonable terms to use the ideas and code in Plan 9.
There are two primary reasons I champion the use of Plan 9:
- I greatly respect the contributions of Bell Labs researchers
and if I had to bet on a new successful computing paradigm, it
would be theirs.
- The code is written and I believe there are patents. The
easiest way to take advantage of them is to purchase them. Also,
after looking at way too much *BSD and Linux code (and I use that
term loosely) it is refreshing to read the mostly clear, precise
and well designed code that is in Plan 9. In fact, a very large
reason for me staying away from every other "free" system out
there is the awlful spaghetti known as the GNU C compiler. I have
looked very hard at Amoeba for that very reason and it is too bad
that the source to the C compiler is not included in that
distribution.
In any case, given that an Open Source model is not an option, how
do we proceed?
==================================================
Lucio De Re <lu...@proxima.alt.za> wrote:
>> Access to commercial use sublicenses.
>>
>I wonder if drawing a line at this point would not give us additional
>scope. Membership up to, but not including this point would be,
>tentatively, implicit in being on a mailing list, whereas this
>access may require a subscription fee.
Actually, to have access to code would incur the membership fee
as there has to be some way to define "membership." To do otherwise
would be to deny Lucent revenue from source sales (the book.)
>> How should the Club be governed?
>>
>A board of trustees. It's the only mechanism I have come across
>that eliminates vested interests :-) But it is only a semi-serious
>suggestion, it may be too complex for the purpose.
Or a board of directors (it is a corporation.) We *want* them to
have a vested interest in the owners' (the members'?) interests.
>> Would members be compensated for their code contributions? How?
>>
>Too difficult to do by default. Members may ask for compensation
>and refrain from providing the contribution, so it would be desirable
>to have some funds for such
I was thinking the members could submit code in exchange for dues
and the usual recognition that goes along with this kind of thing
("The Cathedral and the Bazaar").
>> Long Live Plan 9!
>>
>Oh, I bet it will!! Thanks, David, you have done well beyond the
>call of duty in this, no matter what your claimed objectives may be.
My claimed objectives? I didn't know I had any. I have often
wondered how things would have been if UNIX was licensed by someone
that didn't give a hoot whether a dime of money was made, but instead
wanted to further the spread of a great system just for its own sake.
Imagine UNIX on the x386 in '85 that was supported by the users of
the system for only the the *cost* of the license to AT&T and only
if you used it commercially? How would things look now? I guess
the problem is that anybody that can finance the redistribution
license must have a business plan and that plan must include
making money.
Well in my case, I don't have a plan (I financed this personally).
Perhaps I would like to see just how much of a mess I can make in
the software world and see Microsnot go to [bleep]. Sure Lucent
wins, but I think that is a small price to pay for the quality
of the code and research we get. In addition, enhancements to
the system that we create may be licensed back to Lucent in the
future, perhaps nullifying the effect of the money deal.
We will never know if we don't try.
And one last thing, I expect that the Club would be totally owned
by the members at some point. How and when that would happen
would be decided before the first membership fee was accepted.
David Butler
g...@dbSystems.com
for...@caldo.demon.co.uk
tomorrow, or rather today, once i've got in to work,
i hope to pull the list back to some further discussions
about licences, by posting a short summary of the one we
propose to use for some software we're releasing shortly.
we were intrigued to see that it has some overlap with gdb's `club',
but we've already got ours in legal form. we haven't checked
all the details yet (we're frantically busy),
so that's just an impression. he certainly did raise some
points that i do not think we have quite resolved, and something
might come out of a discussion about it.
Will Rose
To: 9f...@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Plan 9 future
X-Newsgroups: comp.os.plan9
In-Reply-To: <2000051203...@mail.eot.dbsystems.com>
User-Agent: tin/pre-1.4-19990927 ("Nine While Nine") (UNIX) (crash/3.2 (i386))
In article <2000051203...@mail.eot.dbsystems.com> you wrote:
: Again waiting for this thread to idle (and watching with even
: further amusement the discussions of U*NIX's history; brace
: styles, that was good), I would like to continue the discussion
: of commercial use of Plan 9.
: Even though most of us agree with Jim Choate that an Open Source
: model would be the most attractive to everybody except Lucent
: stock holders, the reality is that the most we can hope for is
: reasonable terms to use the ideas and code in Plan 9.
: There are two primary reasons I champion the use of Plan 9:
: - I greatly respect the contributions of Bell Labs researchers
: and if I had to bet on a new successful computing paradigm, it
: would be theirs.
: - The code is written and I believe there are patents. The
: easiest way to take advantage of them is to purchase them. Also,
: after looking at way too much *BSD and Linux code (and I use that
: term loosely) it is refreshing to read the mostly clear, precise
: and well designed code that is in Plan 9. In fact, a very large
: reason for me staying away from every other "free" system out
: there is the awlful spaghetti known as the GNU C compiler. I have
: looked very hard at Amoeba for that very reason and it is too bad
: that the source to the C compiler is not included in that
: distribution.
If this is the ACK (Amsterdam Compiler Kit) compiler, the source
may be released within the next few months. comp.os.minix (which
uses ACK) has been discussing this recently.
Will
c...@cts.com
Ed
>
> In any case, given that an Open Source model is not an option, how
> do we proceed?
>
Proceed practically....
If I can throw in my 5 cents...
I have a practical use for Plan 9. I would like to develop a public safety software
system that would cater to both small and large public safety organizations. I will be
funding the project myself . Since the project will take a year or more I must choose the
platform wisely.
What I don't care about:
Open Source: It's neat but not a deciding factor
Free: It's neat but not a deciding factor .
What I care about.
The cost to me for developing an application (my time spent programming, cost of
tools...)
The cost to my customers (operating system costs, misc. software costs)
I have no interest in tweaking the kernel or compiler suites, or mangling the clean
interfaces. If Lucent sets a fair pricing structure that I believe will not stifle my
business then I will choose to develop my application on Plan 9. It is my belief that
others like me would also choose Plan 9.
BTW, I like the direction that GDB has taken this discussion. Let's hope this next
release of Plan 9 takes a better turn (read more profitable) than the last CD release.
Cheers,
Ed Brown
Minimano Labs, Inc.
edb...@binc.net
Douglas A. Gwyn
> Exportability is moot. Code is speech. The fact that DES is so easily
> cracked makes it worthless. The current Plan 9 crypto is worse than
> nothing because it fools users without crypto background into a false
> sense of security.
DES isn't all that easily cracked. However, better crypto is needed,
but really strong crypto is a lot harder than almost everyone thinks.
It is really hard to keep the protocols themselves from being abused.
So hard that this is still an area of active research!