Date: Mon, 1 Apr 2013 17:40:33 +0100 From: Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org> To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: use of the kernel and licensing Message-ID: <20130401174033.9952b528818668fa12b46e39@sohara.org> In-Reply-To: <51599907.3010802@a1poweruser.com> References: <CAJ%2Bvzi9RZN5F50fCDJBGJ23R2%2BrhAsC10WSt_PMeFhO=WU3UZA@mail.gmail.com> <20130331001209.GA69583@neutralgood.org> <51583C91.5060000@a1poweruser.com> <20130331163143.aabedff2.freebsd@edvax.de> <op.wute6pxgg7njmm@michael-think> <20130331170902.bbcd8179.freebsd@edvax.de> <51599907.3010802@a1poweruser.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Mon, 01 Apr 2013 10:26:15 -0400 Joe <fbsd8@a1poweruser.com> wrote: > snip.... > > How do you explain all the forks of UNIX each claiming their own > copyright. Look very carefully at the copyrights involved, you will see copyright attributions retained very carefully (see for example the file /usr/src/COPYRIGHT in FreeBSD). > They all provide the same concept, use the same names for > their commands, use the same programming language, have a filesystem as > their base. These features are defined in open standards (POSIX and SUS) for anyone who cares to implement them. > Just where is the line drawn between a fork and a rewrite? That's simple in essence, if it's written by taking a copy of the code and modifying it then it's a fork (until and unless you can prove that not one single line of the original code remains), if it's written from scratch with no reference to the original code then it's a rewrite. I suppose there are edge cases where a rewrite may include a portion taken from the original (assuming compatible licensing), or where a fork has been so heavily modified that little of the original remains. -- Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20130401174033.9952b528818668fa12b46e39>