From owner-freebsd-stable Thu Jan 20 11:19:27 2000 Delivered-To: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org Received: from mail-green.research.att.com (H-135-207-30-103.research.att.com [135.207.30.103]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 112E414EC6; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:19:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from fenner@research.att.com) Received: from alliance.research.att.com (alliance.research.att.com [135.207.26.26]) by mail-green.research.att.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id C96441E01E; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:18:48 -0500 (EST) Received: from windsor.research.att.com (windsor.research.att.com [135.207.26.46]) by alliance.research.att.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id OAA17503; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 14:18:48 -0500 (EST) From: Bill Fenner Received: (from fenner@localhost) by windsor.research.att.com (8.8.8+Sun/8.8.5) id LAA16321; Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:18:47 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: <200001201918.LAA16321@windsor.research.att.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII To: obrien@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Next release should be called 5.0 (was:4.4 BSD forever?) Cc: freebsd-stable@freebsd.org References: <200001111107.MAA09106@114046.kema.nl> <20000111040500.A46259@dragon.nuxi.com> Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 11:18:47 -0800 Versions: dmail (solaris) 2.2g/makemail 2.9a Sender: owner-freebsd-stable@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG Nothing like resurrecting a week-dead thread, huh? I thought that I had picked up somewhere that Berkeley's agreement with USL didn't allow major releases without renegotiating the license, but patches were considered to be OK, so the 4.x releases were all deemed to be "patches" to 4BSD. Perhaps this is a BSD urban legend? Bill To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-stable" in the body of the message