[Sorry if I sound a bit rough, but I'm really tired and I'm somewhat
sore about this subject, perhaps due to excessive hopes and
expectations.]

On 10/11/07, Marco Peereboom <slash@peereboom.us> wrote:
> 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.

Why don't you complain in 9fans or inferno-list instead? where there
is a chance that someone might be able to answer the questions.

> > >> > 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.

That is obvious, but it was VitaNuova, not lucent who released the
compilers under MIT license.

> > > 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.

To be honest, I'm quite feed up with this whole story, over two years
ago I spent some time talking with Theo and then with charles (from
VN) to try to get the thing released under a license that made
everyone happy, when at long last VN got around releasing it under MIT
I never heard again from Theo or other OpenBSD people, not blaming
anyone, I'm just disappointed at the lack of interest from all parties
in moving forward in a way that could greatly benefit everyone
involved.

By the way, to see the (supposedly) official site for the VN kencc project see:
http://code.google.com/p/ken-cc/ (I have no clue how up to date that
code is or anything, but it is certainly MIT licensed).

> > 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.

I have no clue what is this about, and it is the first time I hear of
it, but I would love to know if any Plan 9 or Inferno developers have
done any such thing.


> > 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.

I wish the people in charge were not so damned quiet about this stuff,
but you know you could always ask?


> > 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.

Except that ATT/Lucent and Bell Labs have nothing to do with the MIT
relicensing.


> > This should be an easy thing to demonstrate. But one has to understand
> > who has the authority to make the statement of license.

This is an easy thing to solve, if one asks in the right place.

Sorry again if this sounds a bit rough, but I did put a huge amount of
effort into trying to get this issue solved and I'm quite disappointed
that people don't seem to be interested in even finding out what the
real situation is.

Best wishes to everyone

uriel