Hi,

on Sun, 26 Dec 1999 12:16:30 -0500 (EST) der Mouse wrote 
concerning "Re: hardware doc via plan9 code" something like this:

>>> [...] do we perhaps want to do some cleanrooming ourselves?
>> I'm not too sure about that.  We're way too few people who actually
>> code for next68k anyway.  I don't think it makes sense to lose some
>> because they have used encumbered code.

> I don't see that we have much choice, unless perhaps we can convince
> the Linux cleanroom effort to release their intermediate notes or some
> such. 

From your initial message, I thought they wanted to post those notes anyway.

> Given how little of my code is in /next68k at present (none? or
> did something I wrote work its way in?), I'm tempted to start in on the
> code-reader side of the cleanroom.

I doubt that will do us much good (which of course is just my very personal
opinion), because what I think we're really lacking is some coders with
enough time to write and test code. 

I don't know if any of your code actually made it into the tree, but
it sure helped people like me to write more code.

>>> It's not clear to me to what extent the stuff in the .tar.gz is
>>> covered by the plan9 license; I haven't yet unpacked the tar and
>>> looked for copyright license terms.
>> I don't know what .tar.gz you are getting,

> The one referred to in the embedded message.

Ooops ... didn't read past the first quoted signature ;)

> It came from a completely different site; the only connections with
> Plan9 I can see without looking at file contents are (a) the message I
> quoted and (b) the names of some directories in the tarchive.

Well the message clearly states it's plan9 code, so even if the license was
not included the code is still covered. Actually, it may even have been
illegal (according to that license) to publish the code, but I wouldn't
worry about that too much.

Bye, Rolf