I am with Nick here. Every time this is brought up I surf to website(s)
to look for the license and I can never find it. I have even asked
several times on this list where it is. The usual answer is somewhere
completely unrelated saying: "this is the license". Sorry but that is
not good enough. The license has to be part of the distribution until
then all code is suspect. Having 100 people repeating it 100000 times
does not make it so.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2007 at 08:25:45PM -0400, Nick Holland wrote:
> Iruata Souza wrote:
> > On 10/10/07, mcb, inc. <mcbinc@panix.com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, 10 Oct 2007, Iruata Souza wrote:
> >>
> >> > because it's not a lucent effort. it was ported as a google summer of
> >>
> >> If it was 'ported,' then it is still encumbered by Lucent's
> >> licensing. Porting doesn't erase copyrights.
> >>
> >> --
> >> Monty Brandenberg, Software Consultant MCB, Inc.
> >> mcbinc@panix.com P.O. Box 426188
> >> mcbinc@pobox.com Cambridge, MA 02142-0021
> >> 617.864.6907
> >>
> >
> > did you read the license? it's MIT.
> > if you are so interested in the issue, email Kris Maglione or, if you
> > want it, I can give you more people for you to talk about this license
> > story.
>
> Did you read the history on this?
>
> Quite some time ago, we begged the Plan 9 people to BSD'ify their license.
> They said, quite simply (and probably at their lawyers instruction), "no
> way, we like our license as it is".
>
> More recently, someone grabbed some of one of our developer's work, and
> stuck their license and name on the top of them. We don't like that. We
> did and still are raising hell over it.
>
> Now, you come along and say, "here's the Plan 9 compiler with a BSD
> compatible license". Forgive us for being a tad skeptical. In order to
> actually have that work, it's gotta be not the person who stuck their name
> on the top, but rather ALL the people who claimed copyright on each file
> that have to say, "Yes, we agree with this change".
>
> I'm not totally disbelieving you. Several years ago, I heard this had
> happened. I went looking for evidence. I found none. Maybe it happened.
> I could never find evidence, and that's not exactly something you keep
> quiet.
>
> A link to the ATT, Lucent, Bell Labs, or Plan9 website saying, "we have
> changed the license on the Plan9 compiler to MIT/BSD" would be nice.
> I'm not sure what else could be considered acceptable, since as I
> recall, it was their lawyers who insisted on the previous license.
>
> This should be an easy thing to demonstrate. But one has to understand
> who has the authority to make the statement of license.
>
> If you disagree, may I write the license for your checking account?
>
> Nick.