Date: 08 Oct 2002 13:27:12 -0700 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen), chat@freeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Congrats to Brett Glass for new BSD history article Message-ID: <ksk7ks65i7.7ks@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <4.3.2.7.2.20021007144630.02982e80@localhost> 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> <4.3.2.7.2.20021007144630.02982e80@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> writes: > The Berkeley portion was free. Methinks that, perhaps, you're > asserting "guilt by assocation." ;-) Yes I am, following the lead of copyright law and common English. If only part of something is free, then that something is non-free. You (and DES) said "BSD was always free" which is very different than "the Berkeley portion of BSD was always free". Such over-reaching should be left to the GNU promoters. I suspect that there were many portions of BSD for which one couldn't possibly separate into Berkeley and AT&T portions, so that there were portions which the two simply had joint ownership of. Such portions were licensed by AT&T and Berkeley under different licenses, and some licensees had to pay license fees to use it, making BSD non-free for most of it's existence and by no means "always free". I see no need to spin the fact, sordid as it might seem to gnus. 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?ksk7ks65i7.7ks>