well, my lawyers are happy either way, as evidenced by the fact we've been shipping it for years :-)
for smaller organizations that don't have the time/money to investigate a bazillion licenses though, MIT is a lot more mainstream and a lot more likely to be on everyone's approved list. but, yeah, IANAL so i don't know what (if anything) the comments in the awk source mean. inferno was relicensed MIT recently too, but their awk still has the lucent license: https://bitbucket.org/inferno-os/inferno-os/src/master/utils/awk/ hmm... what i _should_ be doing while i'm thinking about it is updating AOSP's copy of one-true-awk. so if you'll excuse me, i'll be on my way :-) On Tue, Aug 10, 2021 at 3:50 AM Rob Landley <[email protected]> wrote: > On 8/9/21 11:33 AM, enh wrote: > > /me wonders whether the MIT relicensing of Plan 9 means there's now an > MIT > > licensed descendant/sibling of one true awk? > > Alas, that would still be a license with the "drag this blob of text > around" clause. > > But for your use, being able to say MIT instead of Lucent would probably be > clarifying. Especially since Lucent hasn't technically existed since > 2006... > > Rob >
_______________________________________________ Toybox mailing list [email protected] http://lists.landley.net/listinfo.cgi/toybox-landley.net
