Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 21:56, hiro wrote: > citation needed https://sosenterprise.sd.gov/BusinessServices/Business/FictitiousDetail.aspx?CN=078243101203005056228191044241171252181195229085 -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

Yes, that is curious. On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 22:59, G B wrote: > Curiously, I searched for Nantalala Systems and found an https link to > NANTAHALA SYSTEMS. *BEWARE: SEEMS TO BE BOGUS*  > Under "store" they list two workstations they sell, both listed as > "sold out" that are  >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> has an active community all working on the same fork. The most eye > opening thing about this whole long exchange is that the old Plan9 > people are largely working alone on private forks. apart from the ones who moved to plan9port on mac os. -- 9fans:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:56 PM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > > Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to use > our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users and

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Suggesting ways to try out a Plan9 system is not a hypothetical for me. I put myself out there doing videos demonstrating Plan9 systems, and so I get questions all the time. Everyone has access to amd64 machines. The used market is flooded with retired quad core amd64 Dell and Lenovo office

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:56:20 -0400 "ibrahim via 9fans" <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > I'm wondering why you don't adjust it so that 9front can also be run there. Because 9vx is a hacky dead end; it fundamentally only runs (and can only run) on 32-bit x86. It works because of a quirk of 32-bit x86

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 10:56, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: >> Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to >> use our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users >> and don't assume that they have

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > Fine my dude, you don't have to call us Plan 9, you don't have to want to use > our code. However I ask that you be mindful in how you talk to new users and > don't assume that they have this same level of care for authenticity and "pure"

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> As others have pointed out I think an "official" classification is of little > pragmatic benefit, but it would be nice > to not have this tired conversation every email thread. Of course I have > reason to believe that even if the p9f were > to recognize 9front as being a "Plan 9" it still

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

Jacob Moody: > I'm very glad we were able to communicate this and thank you for taking > the time to talk about this here in this thread. And thanks to you for pointing me to the GTX 4090 and https://crack.sh Both real eye openers. -- 9fans: 9fans

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:39 PM, Jacob Moody wrote: > Are you interested in sharing code between your fork and us? If you have no > intention of making your fork freely available then I don't think there is really much of a point in having some sort of compatibility layer. Of course I am

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 04:22, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: >> I would make a big difference between what plan 9 is and what the licenses >> are. Software doesn't care about licenses. People do (and they should!). >> >> So what is plan 9 even? Can we compare it to UNIX™ or unix or posix? Who >> knows... >> >> I

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:32 PM, ori wrote: > it's a sad system that can't even host its own sources. If you are running a network for your work there is nothing sad about placing services on different OS'es. I'm using fossil-scm for about one decade had never problems it has nearly zero

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Quoth Jacob Moody : > If there were a couple of open source Plan 9 forks that each saw > active development and we were having issues with keeping the source > code ported between them sure I could see this as a reason to do > that. We have however never found that the source code proved much of

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 06:56, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:11 PM, hiro wrote: >> i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination >> of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed >> to work on "real plan9" we can all stop

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Quoth ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:01 PM, hiro wrote: > > did you ever hear of the git > implementation that ori has implemented? > > It was placed on the latest 9legacy CD and I'm not needing/using it. I'm > using fossil-scm which replaced cvs for me.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 4:01 PM, hiro wrote: > did you ever hear of the git implementation that ori has implemented? It was placed on the latest 9legacy CD and I'm not needing/using it. I'm using fossil-scm which replaced cvs for me. Fossil is running on a linux machine in my network and is

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

> My point was only about the advantage of p9sk3 over p9sk1, not to > compare it with anything else. The intent was to counter the implication > that p9sk1 is terrible and completely broken, by suggesting that the One error in our naming is that it might imply dp9ik completely replaced p9sk1.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> If we want to share contributions between forks we need a compatibility layer > if we don't want to we don't have to. adding more compatibility layers doesn't generally makes sharing of contributions easier. the more forks diverge the harder it will be, no matter how many layers you add.

Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

Curiously, I searched for Nantalala Systems and found an https link to NANTAHALA SYSTEMS. *BEWARE: SEEMS TO BE BOGUS*  Under "store" they list two workstations they sell, both listed as "sold out" that are  - OS: FreeBSD with ᴁBSD customizations Under ᴁOS (aka ᴁ9) installation

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 3:35 PM, G B wrote: > Then you are still driving a Benz Patent-Motorwagen built in 1885, which is > regarded as the first practical modern automobile instead of driving > something newer like a Mercedes Benz S-Class or Lexus or Acura since these > newer automobiles

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

On 5/13/24 05:18, Richard Miller wrote: > Jacob and Ori, thank you for filling in some more details. Without > the specifics I had been making some wrong assumptions about where > the exact threat was. > > I think I now have a clearer picture: > > It's not particularly p9sk1 which is vulnerable,

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

"I respect your fork 9front but I won't and can't use it. 9front isn't plan9 from my perspective." Then you are still driving a Benz Patent-Motorwagen built in 1885, which is regarded as the first practical modern automobile instead of driving something newer like a Mercedes Benz S-Class or

[9fans] golang dependency on python3

me: >> (OK, I know that's delusional because I've installed go. But maybe >> not for much longer, as google seems determined to introduce python3 >> as a dependency.) Charles Forsyth: > wat!?? citation: https://github.com/golang/go/issues/62025 -- 9fans:

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

>> (OK, I know that's delusional because I've installed go. But maybe >> not for much longer, as google seems determined to introduce python3 >> as a dependency.) > > wat!?? The Go team is willing to replace the CI builders written in Go by the Chromium builders, which are written in Python 3. So

Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

citation needed On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 1:58 PM wrote: > > On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 18:38, hiro wrote: > > how did you find out about this company, i never saw it mentioned > > anywhere before? > > I don't spend my time trolling 9fans. ;-) > > Vic --

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

> > (OK, I know that's delusional because I've installed go. But maybe > not for much longer, as google seems determined to introduce python3 > as a dependency.) wat!?? On Mon, 13 May 2024 at 13:48, Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote: > cro...@gmail.com: > > As for the proposed strawman

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

cro...@gmail.com: > As for the proposed strawman `p9sk3`, I fail to see what advantage > that would have over dp9ik My point was only about the advantage of p9sk3 over p9sk1, not to compare it with anything else. The intent was to counter the implication that p9sk1 is terrible and completely

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:26 PM, hiro wrote: > at this point all you're doing is speculation at best, it's verbose and spammy, and full of untruths. I do not welcome it, please stop generating noise. You don't have to read nor to reply to my posts. The amount of noise you create exceeds mine

Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 18:38, hiro wrote: > how did you find out about this company, i never saw it mentioned > anywhere before? I don't spend my time trolling 9fans. ;-) Vic -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 1:11 PM, hiro wrote: > i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed to work on "real plan9" we can all stop contributing to 9front. please enlighten me who my future

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

me: >> I try to take a >> minimum-intervention approach ... cro...@gmail.com: > Forgive my saying it, Richard, but I think this is a somewhat overly > staid view of things. You're welcome to say it. My minimalist attitude amounts to a religion, and therefore I don't need to justify it ☺. I know

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

ibrahim you're further inventing misleading terms and definitions that contribute nothing useful to any reader. the "means of porting" is something that you have to go and invest the work into, that's it. it's time, sweat, work. technology cannot help you much with this, renaming the forks also

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I personally prefer to call my fork based on plan9. I didn't write or invent > plan9. Nor is my version a replacement or a continuation of plan9 it is fork > based on plan9. can you please share it with us? i couldn't find a plan9 distribution named "based on plan9" in my google assistant. >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, 13 May 2024 06:52:37 -0400, "ibrahim via 9fans" <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > This was an example and I didn't find the original licenses from freetype in > the folder or in the code. Perhaps they got lost while porting this code to > 9front. Indeed, it would be strange to find them,

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> Note that 9front never claimed to be a continuation, but a fork. The people > who desperately cry for a continuation of plan 9 either claim 9front as a > continuation, or explicitly not. yeah, I did, but that's just me. for me 9front is the perfect continuation of plan9, both in code and in

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

i mean contributing to the plan9 team. i don't share in your discrimination of 9front vs. non9front code. i bet if all of us can be gainfully employed to work on "real plan9" we can all stop contributing to 9front. please enlighten me who my future coworkers might be. who else is going to join the

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 12:40 PM, sirjofri wrote: > For me, it's "all plan9 systems", which includes belllabs plan9, 9legacy, > 9front and so on. That's one of the reasons I name 9front "a plan9 system", > not "the plan9 system", because there are a few different distributions/forks. The

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

> Have a look at authsrv(6) in the manual. The authenticator sends a > pair of tickets to the client, one encrypted with the client's own > key and one encrypted with the server's key. That's what allows > both the client and server to authenticate each other. i stand corrected. also i confused

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> if you notice missing copyright messages: please send a patch. i have no clue what is required, but if you represent freetype or truetype or can imagine their legal requirements, please help us out there. it will be highly appreciated. btw, i hear about this for the first time. This was an

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

> So, if you have an authentication service exposed to the ipv4 > internet (or to the ipv6 internet with a findable address), and > your authid or a known or guessable userid has a weak enough > password to succumb to a dictionary search, it's probably right > to say that a random attacker could

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> namespaces. A few of the commands have changed, like rimport and rcpu > , instead of import and cpu. and just in case some readers might not know, since this topic came up: the reason why it's not called import and cpu is explicitly for backwards(4th ed./legacy/other forks) comaptibility.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

13.05.2024 12:12:49 ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net>: > On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:57 AM, sirjofri wrote: >> So, you could say, plan 9 from bell labs is the last released version, 4th >> edition. The others (9legacy, 9front, ...) are also plan 9, just not plan 9 >> from bell labs. > > I

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

23h...@gmail.com: > ... the server and client keys are the > same in p9sk1 as far as i understood. i would welcome public/private > key system though (is that what you were thinking of when separating > "server key" and "client key". that would add yet another set of > features that are currently

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I was trying to communicate that for the purposes of using hardware made this > millennia (as any "professional" would do), 9front clearly has better code > for doing so. > I trust that the licensing in 9front has been handled correctly. are you trying to imply 9front wouldn't have better

Re: [9fans] one weird trick to break p9sk1 ?

Jacob and Ori, thank you for filling in some more details. Without the specifics I had been making some wrong assumptions about where the exact threat was. I think I now have a clearer picture: It's not particularly p9sk1 which is vulnerable, but the protocol for ticket request / response, which

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:57 AM, sirjofri wrote: > So, you could say, plan 9 from bell labs is the last released version, 4th > edition. The others (9legacy, 9front, ...) are also plan 9, just not plan 9 > from bell labs. I personally prefer to call my fork based on plan9. I didn't write or

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 5:53 AM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: ... > The reasoning is simple : p9f owns the rights for the final release and Nokia > has made this release available under a MIT license. Every one who uses plan9 > not only to toy around or his/her personal use but

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

So, with that definition, the system described in the paper "Plan 9 from bell labs" is not plan9, because it describes any system that uses the same concepts? So, plan9 is like UNIX™ and there's no such thing as a concept about plan 9? Note that 9front never claimed to be a continuation, but a

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024, at 18:22, ibrahim wrote: ... > plan9 is simply the final release made by bell labs and now owned by > p9f. Thats not my interpretation this is a fact. Everything beyond that > point is a fork based on plan9.  > > Everyone is allowed to derive his/her work from this provided

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 11:39 AM, hiro wrote: > are you contributing the team? and paying the team? If you asked me. I don't use 9front or any of your contributions why should I pay for or contribute to your team ? -- 9fans: 9fans Permalink:

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

are you contributing the team? and paying the team? On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 2:22 AM wrote: > > The complexity of communication in this medium often necessitates detailed > discussions. You highlighted the need for additional personnel to manage the > workload (e.g. do the work). From my

Re: [9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

how did you find out about this company, i never saw it mentioned anywhere before? On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 10:43 AM wrote: > > Thank you, Sirjofri, nice idea. > > There are two private U.S. companies that are investing, developing, and > using a closed source Plan 9 distribution called ᴁOS (aka

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I would make a big difference between what plan 9 is and what the licenses > are. Software doesn't care about licenses. People do (and they should!). > > So what is plan 9 even? Can we compare it to UNIX™ or unix or posix? Who > knows... > > I guess I could say a lot more about that topic,

[9fans] List of companies that use Plan 9.

Thank you, Sirjofri, nice idea. There are two private U.S. companies that are investing, developing, and using a closed source Plan 9 distribution called ᴁOS (aka ᴁ9). The companies have been in existence since 2020. Nantahala Holdings, LLC Nantahala Operations, LLC (dba Nantahala Systems)

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

Hey all, Just about one topic mentioned by ibrahim: You mentioned that 9front can't be plan 9 in your perspective because of this licensing and the "origin" of the licensing. > 9front isn't plan9 from my perspective. Plan 9 is the final release with > patches for the files from sources I can

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> I don't want to depend on anything. Your method is just adding other > dependencies to ghostscript if you start with ps, and other > dependencies, if not ghostscript, including C++ code that is inability > to port on Plan9, if you use pdf. > I don't have any dependences remaining you

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 7:17 PM clinton wrote: > > If I were completely naive to actually running plan9 but with many clues > about other operating systems and hardware, would it be better for me to > install 9legacy on some mildly obsolescent but still quite serviceable and > reliable

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 03:27:16AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > For the ghostscript thing, and for the record (noting that, in this > > area, I have put my code-money where my mouth is): > > > > I too want to get rid of Ghostscript. The path adopted is the > > TeX/METAFONT way with the

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 7:33 AM, ron minnich wrote: > So, Ibrahim,  I can not agree with your statement here.  I missed that they combined LPL licensed code instead of combining GPL licensed one. Thanks for the insides and sorry for the late response.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> For the ghostscript thing, and for the record (noting that, in this > area, I have put my code-money where my mouth is): > > I too want to get rid of Ghostscript. The path adopted is the > TeX/METAFONT way with the following: > > - A PostScript interpreter can be, functionnally, divided in two

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Monday, 13 May 2024, at 8:21 AM, Jacob Moody wrote: > I was making fun of your bragging because you implicated more installs > equated to higher quality. I never said that more installs equate higher quality and I never said that the quality of your code sucks or my code quality is better.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:01:59PM -0700, Kurt H Maier via 9fans wrote: > [...] > One by one we're getting rid of the third-party software -- I > particularly look forward to the day we can finally ditch Ghostscript -- > but in the meantime these accusations of license violations are >

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:18:54AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > You really should read the GPL. Your changes were included with GPL'ed code > even in the same file and not distributed as independent patches so the > modified work as a whole got infected by the GPL license. This is

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 02:04:24AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > There are many companies who double license code. As the owners of such code > they are free to do this. Users can't relicense code as they please > especially not GPL licensed code. At no point did we 'relicense' anything.

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On 5/13/24 00:45, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > libttf was one example and because it made its way into 9legacy i inspected > it. > >> Are you implying that a majority of users are using Plan9 in a commercial >> setting? That seems a bit absurd. >> For personal use I think these license issues (if

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

> You have apparently not read our licensing document at > /lib/legal/NOTICE, which explicitly names the terms of the original Plan > 9 code, and assigns the MIT license only to changes produced by 9front. > > As the labs-provided code has been made available under different > licenses, we have

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Mon, May 13, 2024 at 01:54:27AM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Happily. Here's the original revision of /lib/legal/NOTICE: http://code.9front.org/hg/plan9front/file/944787349e93/lib/legal/NOTICE > The Plan 9 software is provided under the terms of

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 10:55 PM ibrahim via 9fans <9fans@9fans.net> wrote: > > > Please correct me if I'm wrong. > Permalink > > In my opinion? you are wrong. And that's as far as I will stay involved in this

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

The last post had some paste copy issues : There are many companies who double license code. As the owners of such code they are free to do this. Users can't relicense code as they please especially not GPL licensed code. If you download code that is GPL licensed you can't change the license

Re: [9fans] Balancing Progress and Accessibility in the Plan 9 Community. (Was: [9fans] Interoperating between 9legacy and 9front)

On Sun, May 12, 2024 at 11:52:29PM -0400, ibrahim via 9fans wrote: > > You ignore copyrights as you please and distributed 9front under an MIT > license long before Nokia as the owner of it decided to do so. You did > that at a time when plan9 was placed under GPL. You have apparently not read