From owner-freebsd-chat Mon Oct 7 13:51: 5 2002 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4131F37B401 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:51:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lariat.org (lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839F543E86 for ; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 13:51:03 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from brett@lariat.org) Received: from mustang.lariat.org (IDENT:ppp1000.lariat.org@lariat.org [63.229.157.2]) by lariat.org (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id OAA13692; Mon, 7 Oct 2002 14:50:41 -0600 (MDT) X-message-flag: Warning! Use of Microsoft Outlook is dangerous and makes your system susceptible to Internet worms. Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20021007144630.02982e80@localhost> X-Sender: brett@localhost X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 4.3.2 Date: Mon, 07 Oct 2002 14:49:58 -0600 To: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) From: Brett Glass Subject: Re: Congrats to Brett Glass for new BSD history article Cc: chat@freeBSD.ORG In-Reply-To: References: <4.3.2.7.2.20021006235106.038621e0@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20021006235106.038621e0@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk List-ID: List-Archive: (Web Archive) List-Help: (List Instructions) List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Loop: FreeBSD.org At 12:07 PM 10/7/2002, Gary W. Swearingen wrote: >Brett Glass 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