Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plan 9 Is Now Available Under The GNU GPLv2

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Plan 9 Is Now Available Under The GNU GPLv2

    Phoronix: Plan 9 Is Now Available Under The GNU GPLv2

    For those that didn't hear the news from earlier this week, the Plan 9 operating system out of Bell Labs has now been relicensed under the GPLv2...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTYwNTg

  • #2
    They could release Unix under GPLv2 instead BSD...oops...we can relicence under GPLv2 the Unix

    Comment


    • #3
      Weird how Berkeley is choosing GPL over BSD... Maybe it's a fork of a fork?

      No matter, these days any Plan9 news is good news

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by c117152 View Post
        Weird how Berkeley is choosing GPL over BSD... Maybe it's a fork of a fork?

        No matter, these days any Plan9 news is good news
        A new OS project has emerged called Akaros, which is under the GPLv2. The Plan 9 Lucent Public License is GPL-incompatible, so this dual-licensing allows Plan9 code to be incorporated into Akaros.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by JX8p View Post
          A new OS project has emerged called Akaros, which is under the GPLv2. The Plan 9 Lucent Public License is GPL-incompatible, so this dual-licensing allows Plan9 code to be incorporated into Akaros.
          My question was directed at Akaros rather than Plan9: Why would Berkeley choose to release a project not under "Berkeley Software Distribution" (BSD)? My theory was that they are forking \ relying on non-BSD code so they have to use GPLv2 as well.

          I should probably have worded my question better... :/

          Comment


          • #6
            Hope we can see some Plan 9 code pushed into Linux now.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by uid313 View Post
              Hope we can see some Plan 9 code pushed into Linux now.
              What for? Is there any specific code in Plan 9 that could be both useful in Linux, and practical to port across? I'm thinking probably not... any desirable features could have been (and perhaps were) copied in Linux years ago if anyone wanted them, and I can't imagine the code is all that useful... anything valuable would need a lot of rewriting to port it to Linux kernel APIs and subsystems...

              Comment


              • #8
                Wow, talk about a change of heart compared to the 1992 Unix Systems Labs v. UC Berkeley lawsuit. Of course, none of the AT&T and Unix Systems Labs successor companies own the UNIX trademark any more. That now belongs to The Open Group.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Delgarde View Post
                  What for? Is there any specific code in Plan 9 that could be both useful in Linux, and practical to port across? I'm thinking probably not... any desirable features could have been (and perhaps were) copied in Linux years ago if anyone wanted them, and I can't imagine the code is all that useful... anything valuable would need a lot of rewriting to port it to Linux kernel APIs and subsystems...
                  How about the other way around? Now that Plan9 is available as GPL, you could port drivers from the linux kernel.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by c117152 View Post
                    How about the other way around? Now that Plan9 is available as GPL, you could port drivers from the linux kernel.
                    Not quite. The article says it's now dual-licensed, so the drivers could only be ported to the GPL version of it.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                      Not quite. The article says it's now dual-licensed, so the drivers could only be ported to the GPL version of it.
                      So? As long as it's well written, working and won't get you sued, why should you care if the LPL version doesn't come with the driver bundled? It's still the Lab's version you're contributing to so it's not like you're forking it or anything...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by c117152 View Post
                        So? As long as it's well written, working and won't get you sued, why should you care if the LPL version doesn't come with the driver bundled? It's still the Lab's version you're contributing to so it's not like you're forking it or anything...
                        Well, such changes would not be upstreamable. So you would have to fork it to contribute such code.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by GreatEmerald View Post
                          Well, such changes would not be upstreamable. So you would have to fork it to contribute such code.
                          Oh... I figured Bell Labs will be maintaining an official GPL branch along side the LPL one while requiring non-driver changes to be submitted as LPL if people want those upstreamed.
                          Hasn't occurred to me this is a one-time deal.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Good

                            It'll set an example to BSD trolls and show them that GPL style licenses are on the increase while BSD style licenses are declining.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by endman View Post
                              It'll set an example to BSD trolls and show them that GPL style licenses are on the increase while BSD style licenses are declining.
                              Sources please, before you come out with such a wild statement.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X