> Is this table correct?
cat '#P/archctl'
cpu Core 2/Xeon 2503 pge
It's actually a Kaby Lake, as far as I can tell.
That table is definitely not correct.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
Family=6, Model=3A applies to all of the 3rd Generation Core i CPUs.
I examined those among the machines I have, and got the results as:
x86intel[] table in /sys/src/9/pc/devarch.c, like:
x86intel[]=
{
/* {6, 0x3A, 16, "Core i7"}, */
{ 6,0x3A, 16, "3rd Gen Core
> Anonymous AWK Fan,
>
> I believe you’re under a misapprehension about how copyrights and
> source ownership work. You’re asking for solutions to problem that
> don’t exist. Take the BCM code RM contributed to Plan 9, for instance.
> Such contributions are considered a “gift” to the larger
> On Mar 31, 2021, at 11:44 AM, Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>
> wrote:
>
>> Instead of cluttering the mailing list, can you go
>> through the list of applied patches, track down the
>> authors, mail them off list about whether they have
>> objections to having their code
> is there an email address to contact p9f directly?
bo...@p9f.org goes to everyone on the board.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Ta6a7f3df36695764-M9c6490d4e2b4b5bb43a88ce9
Delivery options:
hi
is there an email address to contact p9f directly?
-Steve
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/Ta6a7f3df36695764-M37542a3e3d005c764b8773fe
Delivery options: https://9fans.topicbox.com/groups/9fans/subscription
>> I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
>> to be redistributed under the MIT license.
> Is the new one in your contrib directory OK to be redistributed under
> the MIT license too?
That's what it says on the index webpage, and I know no reason to
believe otherwise. I'm
Quoth Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>:
> > Instead of cluttering the mailing list, can you go
> > through the list of applied patches, track down the
> > authors, mail them off list about whether they have
> > objections to having their code relicensed, and
> > forward their
Quoth Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>:
> > Instead of cluttering the mailing list, can you go
> > through the list of applied patches, track down the
> > authors, mail them off list about whether they have
> > objections to having their code relicensed, and
> > forward their
> Instead of cluttering the mailing list, can you go
> through the list of applied patches, track down the
> authors, mail them off list about whether they have
> objections to having their code relicensed, and
> forward their responses in one batch?
It appears many patches were submitted
Quoth Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>:
> > I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
> > to be redistributed under the MIT license.
>
> Is the new one in your contrib directory OK to be redistributed under
> the MIT license too?
>
Instead of cluttering the
> As for what to do about a hypothetical patch rewriting a kernel
> function that someone mailed to Bell Labs in 2003, well, I don't know.
https://groups.google.com/g/plan9changes has many examples of patches
contributed to Plan 9.
--
9fans: 9fans
> I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
> to be redistributed under the MIT license.
Is the new one in your contrib directory OK to be redistributed under
the MIT license too?
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
> Richard Miller being in this very thread, you could presumably get him
> to say "I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
> to be redistributed under the MIT license" and be done with it.
I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
to be redistributed
> > The code under discussion
> > in Richard Miller's contributed bcm kernel.
>
> The web page http://9p.io/sources/contrib/miller/9/bcm says
> "Distributed under the MIT License" with a link to the p9f text.
> Is that not explicit enough?
the issue with that is AFAIK you didn't agree to have it
> Richard Miller being in this very thread, you could presumably get him
> to say "I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
> to be redistributed under the MIT license" and be done with it. Or
> declare the opposite, and the p9f can remove the kernel from the
> source.
The
> The code under discussion
> in Richard Miller's contributed bcm kernel.
The web page http://9p.io/sources/contrib/miller/9/bcm says
"Distributed under the MIT License" with a link to the p9f text.
Is that not explicit enough?
That's the whole bcm kernel (a superset of what appears in an
Richard Miller being in this very thread, you could presumably get him
to say "I declare that the old bcm kernel found in the p9f code is OK
to be redistributed under the MIT license" and be done with it. Or
declare the opposite, and the p9f can remove the kernel from the
source.
As for what to
Hi there. Our wiki got confused. We're still looking into what caused it to get
confused in the first place, but I've given it a prod and things seem to be
working properly again now. Thank you for the report.
And you are definitely not late! The student application period only opened on
Nobody is disgruntled (that we know about). The code under discussion
in Richard Miller's contributed bcm kernel.
Arnold
Jeremy Jackins wrote:
> Seems to me that there is always going to be some non-zero risk of lawsuits
> when making a change like this, but clearly the foundation was
> Everything up to and including the initial 4th edition release should be
> fully MIT licensed because the old Plan 9 license gave Lucent unrestricted
> rights to modifications.
Excluding things explicitly said otherwise.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
Everything up to and including the initial 4th edition release should be
fully MIT licensed because the old Plan 9 license gave Lucent unrestricted
rights to modifications.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
> I assume any code in contrib/ has its author’s copyright unless there is an
> explicit copyright.
The code I'm talking about is in the Plan 9 tree, I've found
/sys/src/9/bcm/ as one example and I think there are probably more.
--
9fans: 9fans
Are you suggesting either getting an explicit permission from the authors or
excising such code included in plan9?
I assume any code in contrib/ has its author’s copyright unless there is an
explicit copyright.
> On Mar 31, 2021, at 9:29 AM, Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>
>
Can this question be resolved by a source tree that depicts license by
path? In other words, if things are contributed outside of what the MIT
License would support, is that notated somewhere? This way, people with
these concerns can easily separate known from uncertain licensed objects?
Also, is
If you are concerned about a contribution of yours that is present in one
of the recently released archives, you should take it up privately with the
foundation. If you are planning to use or create a commercial product, a
review with your attorneys is strongly suggested. Otherwise I don't see a
> > The issue is that there is some code in Plan 9 not written at
> > Bell Labs which doesn't explicitly specify any license.
>
> What actual code are you reffering to?
/sys/src/9/bcm, for example.
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
Seems to me that there is always going to be some non-zero risk of lawsuits
when making a change like this, but clearly the foundation was comfortable
with the risk. So what's the point of this discussion? Who are these
disgruntled contributors you are speaking on behalf of?
On Wed, 31 Mar 2021
> It’s all the code that everyone is using.
> The issue is that there is some code in Plan 9 not written at
> Bell Labs which doesn't explicitly specify any license.
What actual code are you reffering to?
--
9fans: 9fans
Permalink:
> The LPL is dead. It died when all the Plan 9 IP was transferred to the
> foundation.
>
> Nokia is out of the picture.
>
> So let's realign this discussion a bit. The Plan 9 source formerly
> owned by Nokia is owned by the foundation. That source is released
> under the MIT license.
>
> As for
The issue is ownership and grants. Not the code the foundation now owns and
grants with a MIT license. It’s all the code that everyone is using. See the
following email thread:
The LPL is dead. It died when all the Plan 9 IP was transferred to the
foundation.
Nokia is out of the picture.
So let's realign this discussion a bit. The Plan 9 source formerly
owned by Nokia is owned by the foundation. That source is released
under the MIT license.
As for the inclusion of
Hey, my name is Jayant Anand, I am currently an undergrad at IIT Dhanbad, I
have a good knowledge of Operating system and I am willing to contribute to
Plan 9.
It might be late but I was trying to access the idealist for the GSoC
(http://p9f.org/wiki/gsoc-2021-ideas/index.html) and I am
> > As I interpret it, we'd need Nokia to re-release Plan 9 under a Lucent
> > Public License version 1.03 which would be the MIT license for
> > contributions to be relicensed (if I'm interpreting it correctly the
> > GPL release of Plan 9 couldn't apply to contributions either.)
>
> I Am Not A
"Anonymous AWK fan via 9fans" <9fans@9fans.net> wrote:
> As I interpret it, we'd need Nokia to re-release Plan 9 under a Lucent
> Public License version 1.03 which would be the MIT license for
> contributions to be relicensed (if I'm interpreting it correctly the
> GPL release of Plan 9 couldn't
> > I'm talking about things like the bcm kernel contributed by Richard Miller
> > in the 4e-latest tarball, they weren't written at Bell Labs but were
> > contributed back to Plan 9.
>
> I would have thought any third party code in the /sys/src tree is considered
> to be a "Contribution" as
> I'm talking about things like the bcm kernel contributed by Richard Miller in
> the 4e-latest tarball, they weren't written at Bell Labs but were contributed
> back to Plan 9.
I would have thought any third party code in the /sys/src tree is considered
to be a "Contribution" as defined in the
37 matches
Mail list logo
