Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:49:58 -0600 From: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> To: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) Cc: chat@freeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Congrats to Brett Glass for new BSD history article Message-ID: <4.3.2.7.2.20021007144630.02982e80@localhost> In-Reply-To: <lqadlq6s23.dlq@localhost.localdomain> References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021006235106.038621e0@localhost> <xzp3crj113r.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <wq65wq6erq.5wq@localhost.localdomain> <xzp3crj113r.fsf@flood.ping.uio.no> <4.3.2.7.2.20021006235106.038621e0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
At 12:07 PM 10/7/2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > >> At 11:50 PM 10/6/2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >> >> >Sounds like B.S.D. was always free, except after about Mar'78. >> >> BSD *was* always free. However, for awhile it was a free set >> of enhancements to an expensive product. > >And therefor, for the remaining "while" (all but some part of >1976-Mar'78, it seems), it was NOT. So why do you insist on saying >that it was ALWAYS free? It sounds preposterous. > >It seems like you are saying that a (Berkely) software distribution, >which contained both Berkeley free-licensed software and AT&T fee- >licensed software, was nonetheless "free" software. That's nonsense. The Berkeley portion was free. Methinks that, perhaps, you're asserting "guilt by assocation." ;-) (That's all I have to say right now; need to go change a thermostat so that the tenants in the building my wife and I are fixing up do not freeze. I've quoted the rest of your message below at your request.) --Brett >Do you mean to imply that B.S.D. ALWAYS contained nothing but Berkeley >(or other) free-licensed software, like patches and replacement >programs? Was Peter Salus (or his quoter) wrong to say that "1BSD" >contained AT&T code in Mar'78? > >You say yourself, that "The BSD code, which was [...] very much >intertwined with AT&T's code". > >Even if the actual B.S.D. (ie, the tape contents) WAS pure Berkeley >free-licensed patches, etc., wasn't it (and isn't it) Unix-industry- >standard jargon to refer to "BSD" (not "the BSDs") as an *OS* which >contained both free- and fee-licensed software? I'm sure that companies >who paid a few hundred $ for the BSD tapes and a few (?) thousand for >the AT&T license didn't think of BSD as free software. Nor people who >read other histories. > >Please, I support your efforts in most of these licensing issues and I >want to believe what you say about BSD history, but unfortunately, it >seems to differ from everything else I've read, and so I'd like to see >you provide something like support for your history. More details about >what was in those distributions, if nothing else. NO fee-licensed code? > To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.3.2.7.2.20021007144630.02982e80>