Re: [9fans] drawterm crash
yes, I am on suse 10.0 x86_64. When I compile I get two warnings related to longs and ints: devtls.c:521: warning: comparison is always true due to limited range of data type sysproc.c:14: warning: cast to pointer from integer of different size the first one points to if(d->mode != ~0UL) which I have no idea why is causing a warning, since mode is also a ulong. And the second one is from a cast status = (char*)arg[0]; but I am not really sure how to fix this correctly. I just did something like char c; c = arg[0] & 0xFF; status = &c; this eliminates the warning and drawterm doesn't crash any more. But the problem is that I cannot paste anything that comes from X to drawterm, should I be able to? Saludos 2009/3/31, erik quanstrom : > On Tue Mar 31 12:14:49 EDT 2009, uai...@gmail.com wrote: > > Hi, > > Just try to paste anything coming from X. (e.g. paint some text from > > an xterm, then try to paste it on some terminal on drawterm, using the > > menu or the 1-3 mouse chord, both crash anyway) > > > you're using a 64-bit os, aren't you? if that's the case, i fixed this a week > or so ago and pushed the patch to russ. i think he's got the fix. if not, > just fix the compile warning and you'll be good-to-go. it's an int vs. long > issue. unfortunately, i don't have yesterday for linux and don't remember > what i fixed. > > > - erik > > -- Hugo
Re: [9fans] what features would you like in a shell?
2009/4/1 matt : > >> you think the idea of reloading a crashed program is not a good one? >> for example, what if it's a web browser? >> >> > > crash reload crash reload crash reload agghh make it stop > > btw. Windows uses this mechanism for running Explorer, as a stop gap to > fixing it they just made it auto-respawn. > If somebody wants to do such a thing (which all we agree is a bad idea) you need no new features in the shell, eg: while() firefox -- - yiyus || JGL .
Re: [9fans] what features would you like in a shell?
If somebody wants to do such a thing (which all we agree is a bad
idea) you need no new features in the shell, eg:
while() firefox
that doesn't permit a clean exit, this does :
fn ff {firefox || ff} ; ff;
Re: [9fans] drawterm crash
2009/4/1, hugo rivera : > this eliminates the warning and drawterm doesn't crash any more. But > the problem is that I cannot paste anything that comes from X to > drawterm, should I be able to? well, now I can paste stuff from X. Guess I didn't do it right the first time. -- Hugo
Re: [9fans] what features would you like in a shell?
you think the idea of reloading a crashed program is not a good one? for example, what if it's a web browser? crash reload crash reload crash reload agghh make it stop btw. Windows uses this mechanism for running Explorer, as a stop gap to fixing it they just made it auto-respawn. either way I think it's a unrequired feature for a shell, a user program specifically for monitoring process state would be preferred, should it be required.
[9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Hi, I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; the published packages are available on SourceForge: "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P networks. Have fun, Bernd. -- gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
Re: [9fans] what features would you like in a shell?
I also use to put a sleep 1 in there.
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 12:01 PM, matt wrote:
>
>> If somebody wants to do such a thing (which all we agree is a bad
>> idea) you need no new features in the shell, eg:
>> while() firefox
>>
>
> that doesn't permit a clean exit, this does :
>
> fn ff {firefox || ff} ; ff;
>
>
>
Re: [9fans] what features would you like in a shell?
* hiro (23h...@googlemail.com) wrote: > I also use to put a sleep 1 in there. > I'm all for minimalism: while(! firefox) sleep 1
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been > published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project > documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; > the published packages are available on SourceForge: > "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. > > J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including > authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic > 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java > objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method > calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it > is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P > networks. > > Have fun, Bernd. > -- > gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 > > Interesting, thanks.
Re: [9fans] Latest pull killed my server
On 31 Mrz., 15:03, quans...@quanstro.net (erik quanstrom) wrote:
> /* compute log10(ether->mbps) into lg */
> for(lg = 0, mb = ether->mbps; mb >= 10; lg++)
> mb /= 10;
> if (lg > 0)
> lg--;
> if (lg > 14) /* 2^(14+17) = 2?? */
> lg = 14;
> /* allocate larger output queues for higher-speed interfaces */
> bsz = 1UL << (lg + 17); /* 2?? = 128K, bsz = 2? � 128K */
> while (bsz > mainmem->maxsize / 8 && bsz > 128*1024)
> bsz /= 2;
>
> netifinit(ether, name, Ntypes, bsz);>>while (ether->oq == nil
> && bsz > 128*1024) {
>
> bsz /= 2;
> ether->oq = qopen(bsz, Qmsg, 0, 0);
> ether->limit = bsz;
> }
> if(ether->oq == nil)
> panic("etherreset %s", name);
>
> the simple fix would be to change the > on the marked
> line to >=. but i think the while loop could be tossed
> since malloc panics on failure and since qopen only allocates
> sizeof(Queue) regardless of the limit argument. i had
> this code when i wrote the myricom driver (qio sets q->limit itself).
>
> j = ether->mbps;
> if(j > 1000)
> j *= 10;
> for(i = 0; j >= 100; i++)
> j /= 10;
> i = (128< netifinit(ether, name, Ntypes, i);
> if(ether->oq == nil)
> ether->oq = qopen(i, Qmsg, 0, 0);
> if(ether->oq == nil)
> panic("etherreset %s", name);
>
> by the way, a quick scan shows
> ether2114x
> etherrhine
> are capable of setting mbps to 0 on startup. this should
> be legal, since ethernet can be connected after boot.
>
> - erik
It work's
Thank you.
AZ.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Very cool. Can I mount it with v9fs? :-) I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough. Dave On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been > published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project > documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; > the published packages are available on SourceForge: > "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. > > J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including > authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic > 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java > objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method > calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it > is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P > networks. > > Have fun, Bernd. > -- > gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
This is seriously cool and must be added to: http://9p.cat-v.org/implementations Thanks, Roman. On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 13:43 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > Hi, > > I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been > published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project > documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; > the published packages are available on SourceForge: > "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. > > J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including > authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic > 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java > objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method > calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it > is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P > networks. > > Have fun, Bernd.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
I have been using Inferno for a while and wrote it originally to use legacy services from within Inferno. So most (not to say all) testing have been done using Inferno so far. I have just set up Plan9 under Xen and got everything (including network) up and running. I will focus on Plan9 for further development, but have to make myself familiar with it first. But I am sure, that it will work with Plan9 without problems. I am also confident that the J9P server will also work with other 9fs clients like v9fs - but that needs checking as well. If you give it a try, can you please file a "field report", so I can include it in the documentation? Regards, Bernd. David Leimbach schrieb: > Very cool. Can I mount it with v9fs? :-) > I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough. > > Dave > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been >> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project >> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; >> the published packages are available on SourceForge: >> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. >> >> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including >> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic >> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java >> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method >> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it >> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P >> networks. >> >> Have fun, Bernd. >> -- >> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 >> >> > -- gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to use this implementation for what I want otherwise. I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and BSDLng it. I figured the best way to understand 9p would be to implement it :-) Dave On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 8:05 AM, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > I have been using Inferno for a while and wrote it originally to use > legacy services from within Inferno. So most (not to say all) testing > have been done using Inferno so far. > > I have just set up Plan9 under Xen and got everything (including > network) up and running. I will focus on Plan9 for further development, > but have to make myself familiar with it first. But I am sure, that it > will work with Plan9 without problems. > > I am also confident that the J9P server will also work with other 9fs > clients like v9fs - but that needs checking as well. If you give it a > try, can you please file a "field report", so I can include it in the > documentation? > > Regards, Bernd. > > David Leimbach schrieb: > > Very cool. Can I mount it with v9fs? :-) > > I may actually have a use for such a thing very soon, oddly enough. > > > > Dave > > > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 4:43 AM, Bernd R. Fix > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> I just want to announce that a new 9P-related framework has been > >> published (pre-alpha status, PoC). You find the current project > >> documentation on the project homepage "http://aspector.com/~brf/J9P";; > >> the published packages are available on SourceForge: > >> "https://sourceforge.net/projects/j9pstyxlib/";. > >> > >> J9P is a pure Java implementation of the 9P(2000) protocol including > >> authentication and message digests/encryption. It comes with a generic > >> 9P server that publishes namespaces that are assembled from Java > >> objects. File operations in the namespace are mapped to Java method > >> calls; the called object handles the operation accordingly. This way it > >> is quite easy to integrate non-9P services (like SQL databases) into 9P > >> networks. > >> > >> Have fun, Bernd. > >> -- > >> gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 > >> > >> > > > > > -- > gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
David Leimbach schrieb: > Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to > use this implementation for what I want otherwise. > I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and > BSDLng it. I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business. As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas? Feel free to contact me via private mail on this. I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that once a stable stage is reached. N.B.: The project is in an very early stage of development and will need quite some debugging and extension before you can use it seriously! > I figured the best way to understand 9p would be to implement it :-) Me too - and my strongest motivation during the initial development. Regards, Bernd. -- gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 9:49 AM, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > David Leimbach schrieb: > > Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able > to > > use this implementation for what I want otherwise. > > I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and > > BSDLng it. > > I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So > what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and > what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business. Believe it or not... it may be in a commercial product, and one of the reasons why I may implement it myself. Right now it's just a bit of a brainstorming session I've had with others for a need for something that 9p might be able to handle. > > > As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel > that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas? > Feel free to contact me via private mail on this. Makes sense. One way I can get around this problem is to have the 9p act as a proxy for another interface, but that can add a lot of extra fragility (like RMI... yuck.). Then the 9p server can run standalone, and be all GPL'd but then it would consume our other programming interface remotely, and without linkage. Perhaps this is why Plan 9 folks usually don't have problems with the GPL... there's no linkage to speak of in terms of programming. It's the same relationship of a web browser to a web server, and for the GPL to claim that if a browser talks to a web server, that the browser must also be GPL'd, I just don't think anyone would let it get that far :-). > > > I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that > once a stable stage is reached. Cool. > > > N.B.: The project is in an very early stage of development and will need > quite some debugging and extension before you can use it seriously! I realize this... and haven't even downloaded it yet, but I commend your efforts on doing this :-). > > > > I figured the best way to understand 9p would be to implement it :-) > > Me too - and my strongest motivation during the initial development. > Indeed! > > Regards, Bernd. > -- > gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4 > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > David Leimbach schrieb: > > Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to > > use this implementation for what I want otherwise. > > I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and > > BSDLng it. > > I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So > what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and > what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business. > > As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel > that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas? > Feel free to contact me via private mail on this. > > I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that > once a stable stage is reached. Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the first place? Thanks, Roman. P.S. Personally, I try to license my stuff under as non-restrictive license as possible (BSD or at least LGPL) that still protects me. That said, I do understand people who use GPL as a statement, not because the license is particularly good.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Roman V Shaposhnik schrieb: > On Wed, 2009-04-01 at 18:49 +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: >> David Leimbach schrieb: >>> Anyway to get a non GPL v3 licensed version from you? I may not be able to >>> use this implementation for what I want otherwise. >>> I was actually planning on doing this myself, anyway at one point, and >>> BSDLng it. >> I guess there is a clash of licenses between your project and J9P. So >> what licence are you using (I assume it is no commercial project) and >> what makes it problematic? I am not too deep into this licensing business. >> >> As (currently) sole copyright holder I can make exceptions, but I feel >> that this problem should be solved in a more general way. Any ideas? >> Feel free to contact me via private mail on this. >> >> I thought about using the LGPL for the project and might reconsider that >> once a stable stage is reached. > > Not implying anything, just a question: what made you pick GPL in the > first place? > > Thanks, > Roman. > > P.S. Personally, I try to license my stuff under as non-restrictive > license as possible (BSD or at least LGPL) that still protects me. > That said, I do understand people who use GPL as a statement, not > because the license is particularly good. I can't answer this question with just a few words; I hope the other list members don't complain about this 'non-Plan9' specific discussion... As I wrote in an earlier mail, I am not too deep into this licensing stuff, but I know what I would like to have for my software: I want it Open-Source - that's my basic 'statement'. For me this means: I am willing to share my ideas (and code for that matter) with people interested in it. Im am even willing to give all people the right to base their own work on it and/or to modify it to their own liking. All I am asking for is that these people share their ideas and code just like I did - at least if they distribute their work. Essentially, that's it. Maybe I am wrong, but I had the impression that the GPL serves this purpose best - from my point of view at least. I understand that there are two cases which lead to problems with a GPL project, but I believe both cases can be solved: 1.) You want to use it in an commercial project and can't/don't want to share your ideas and code. Assuming you are not a criminal, you can't include the software or derived work into your product - the GPL permits that. But you can still license a commercial use with the copyright holder(s) in such cases. If you don't share ideas, at least share your money. 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly willing to change to it. Regards, Bernd. -- gpg fp: F722 2826 40C2 B3C4 E136 6DE5 1DC0 7A20 513B C8F4
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Hi! On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly > willing to change to it. For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and libraries. GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war. -- WBR, Alex.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: > Hi! > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > > > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > > > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > > > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly > > willing to change to it. > > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. > > > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and > libraries. > > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my > war. Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is important to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without helping me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are made available to you. > > -- > WBR, Alex. >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: > > Hi! > > > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > > > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > > > > > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > > > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > > > > > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > > > > > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly > > > willing to change to it. > > > > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. > > > > > > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't > > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing > > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and > > libraries. > > > > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my > > war. > > Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that > guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is > important > to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without > helping > me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. > > So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any > other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are > made > available to you. > > > > > -- > > WBR, Alex. > > D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't forced to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you have to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less idealistic.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody wants to use it because of the license? Lucho On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: >> Hi! >> >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: >> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license >> > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. >> > >> > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe >> > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. >> > >> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against >> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. >> > >> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that >> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" >> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly >> > willing to change to it. >> >> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. >> >> >> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't >> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing >> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and >> libraries. >> >> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my >> war. > > Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that > guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is > important > to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without > helping > me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. > > So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any > other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are > made > available to you. > >> >> -- >> WBR, Alex. >> > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Alex Efros wrote: GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my war. Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after 500+ messages, and we can get on with the other discussions.
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their code. Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and resources. I agree with Alex that the best is Public Domain, or at least BSD/MIT/ISC-style license, which is as close as you can get to Public Domain while retaining copyright. Peace uriel On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote: >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: >> > Hi! >> > >> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: >> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license >> > > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. >> > > >> > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe >> > > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. >> > > >> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against >> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. >> > > >> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that >> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" >> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly >> > > willing to change to it. >> > >> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. >> > >> > >> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't >> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing >> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and >> > libraries. >> > >> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my >> > war. >> >> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that >> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is >> important >> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without >> helping >> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. >> >> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see >> any >> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are >> made >> available to you. >> >> > >> > -- >> > WBR, Alex. >> > > > D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't forced > to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you > have > to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less > idealistic. > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:06 PM, Wes Kussmaul wrote: > Alex Efros wrote: > > > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my >> war. >> > > > Let's now pretend it's late August, the flame war has subsided after 500+ > messages, and we can get on with the other discussions. > > How is this even a flame? :-) It's true. Forget the negative connotations of "virus", and realize that GPL transmits itself from software to software in a viral fashion, and that is exactly its purpose. Also keep in mind that Richard Stallman hates closed source and commercial software. Tell me he wouldn't agree with that statement, and then look at some old GNU manuals with the mockeries of commercial software guys with money falling out of their pockets (if only that were true, I could afford my house more easily). This is a discussion of distribution methods, and I think it's worth people re-visiting this, maybe not in this forum, but to consider their options and the consequences :-) Dave
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see any > other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others are > made > available to you. "Stealing" code is common practice, don't try to prevent it. And there are no guarantees as you can see in piratebay and rapidshare...
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 02:47:29PM -0600, Latchesar Ionkov wrote: > Are you sure there will be any improvements of your code if nobody > wants to use it because of the license? Ok, this is flamebait, but... >From what I've seen, it works; there are plenty of projects under the GPL that get contributions. Of course you can argue the merits of any of them. But if you don't like the license, it's very simple: don't use it. And as I remembered, there are alternative licenses with similar intent, like the Vim license. > > Lucho > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 2:42 PM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: > >> Hi! > >> > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > >> > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > >> > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > >> > > >> > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > >> > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > >> > > >> > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > >> > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > >> > > >> > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > >> > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > >> > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am certainly > >> > willing to change to it. > >> > >> For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. > >> > >> > >> P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't > >> bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing > >> my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and > >> libraries. > >> > >> GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not my > >> war. > > > > Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that > > guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is > > important > > to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without > > helping > > me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. > > > > So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see > > any > > other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others > > are made > > available to you. > > > >> > >> -- > >> WBR, Alex. > >> > > > > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:11:28PM +0200, Uriel wrote: > Actually the GPL doesn't do what you guys claim it to do, it doesn't > require people to share back with you changes to your code, it only > requires them to release their changes if they *redistribute* their > code. Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which is as effectual as a license can get. > > Anyway, licenses are an annoyance and a waste of everyone's time and > resources. I agree with Alex that the best is Public Domain, or at > least BSD/MIT/ISC-style license, which is as close as you can get to > Public Domain while retaining copyright. Unfortunately, as a race, we have not yet come to the agreement of throwing every lawyer on the face of the earth into a volcano > > Peace > > uriel > > On Wed, Apr 1, 2009 at 10:46 PM, J.R. Mauro wrote: > > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 04:42:18PM -0400, J.R. Mauro wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 11:19:08PM +0300, Alex Efros wrote: > >> > Hi! > >> > > >> > On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 10:02:04PM +0200, Bernd R. Fix wrote: > >> > > 2.) You have an OS project with a different, incompatible license > >> > > and want to include a GPL project or base some work on it. > >> > > > >> > > I am sure that this problem occurred many times in the past; maybe > >> > > there even exists a 'best practice' approach how to deal with this. > >> > > > >> > > To be honest: I don't think that the first case is an argument against > >> > > the GPL - not for me. I am more worried about the second case. > >> > > > >> > > So my question to you licensing experts: is there a better license that > >> > > follows my basic statement (see above) and allows better "integration" > >> > > into other OS licenses? If I have a better license model, I am > >> > > certainly > >> > > willing to change to it. > >> > > >> > For libraries it usually solved using LGPL instead of GPL. > >> > > >> > > >> > P.S. As for me, I'd like to try to make world a little better, and don't > >> > bother much about reusing my code in commercial projects or even removing > >> > my name from sources - so I use Public Domain for all my applications and > >> > libraries. > >> > > >> > GPL is a virus, designed to war against commercial software. That's not > >> > my war. > >> > >> Though this is certainly rms's intention, I'm not aware of a license that > >> guarantees you get modifications to your source code back, and that is > >> important > >> to me as well. I don't really want people to improve on my ideas without > >> helping > >> me in the process, and there are a lot of people will do just that. > >> > >> So while the "forcible sharing" of the GPL is kind of fascist, I don't see > >> any > >> other way to have the guarantee that improvements to your code by others > >> are made > >> available to you. > >> > >> > > >> > -- > >> > WBR, Alex. > >> > > > > > D'oh. I *do* know a license that does this: the Vim License. You aren't > > forced > > to distribute source code, but if the original author wants to get it, you > > have > > to provide it free of charge. Similar to the GPL, but less nasty and less > > idealistic. > > > > >
Re: [9fans] J9P/StyxLib
> Trying to enforce private use of licensed code is impossible. It's like trying > to prevent someone from making C4 in their home and keeping it in their > basement. The approach every license I've seen takes is a "don't ask, don't > tell" policy, which is as effectual as a license can get. Thank god we have big corporations making C4 and being able to afford all the laws they want. Off-topic as usual, sorry and good night.
[9fans] Plumber problems in P9P
I'm using P9P on debian/testing linux system, primarily to run acme. As part of my script to start acme in my preferred configuration (autoindent, 3 columns, specific fonts), I run the following "ensure_plumber" script: #!/bin/sh if 9p stat plumb > /dev/null 2>&1 then exit else plumber fi to ensure that the plumber is running. If the plumber isn't running when I start acme, it gets started and right-clicking on a URL in acme opens the URL in my web browser. If I quit acme and start it again (with the plumber still running), it doesn't start a new plumber, and again right-clicking on a URL in acme still works. However, if I log out of linux, and log back it, I can see the that the plumber is still running. When I start acme, it correctly does not start a new plumber, but when I right-click on a URL, nothing happens. At this point if I manually kill and restart the plumber (without restarting acme), right-clicking on the URL works again. I expect that arranging for the plumber to get killed when I log out would solve my practical problem, but I don't understand what is actually going wrong. Can anyone provide any insight? thanks, Peter Canning
