Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:02:22 +0200 From: Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no To: grog@lemis.com Cc: seebs@plethora.net, FreeBSD-advocacy@freebsd.org, netbsd-advocacy@NetBSD.ORG, advocacy@openbsd.org Subject: Re: Document: What's the difference between Linux and BSD? Message-ID: <20000428140222P.he@runit.sintef.no> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:02:43 %2B0930" <20000427140242.M55780@freebie.lemis.com> References: <20000427140242.M55780@freebie.lemis.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I would not call the BSD systems "derivatives of AT&T's UNIX". > > In fact, the entire point of the Lite stuff is that there is > > *no* derivation, in a legal/copyright sense, which is why BSD is > > allowed to exist. > > I wasn't talking in a legal or copyright sense. A lot of the code > in BSD is also in System V, and Research UNIX editions 8 to 10 > were derived from 4.1cBSD. I think we can let this one stand. Well, that doesn't make BSD derived from AT&T UNIX -- in those cases it's the other way around, isn't it? > > If you compare AT&T UNIX(tm) to BSD, in practice, the systems > > diverged from about V7 - BSD is more like V7 than it is like > > System III or V. > > That's why :-) If you still want to claim that BSD is derived from AT&T UNIX, I would probably add "research" between AT&T and UNIX, as in In fact, the BSD operating systems are open source derivatives of AT&T's research UNIX operating system, not clones. However, at the moment, there is no AT&T code left in the freely available BSDs, so what makes it then a derivative? Won't this statement perpetuate the misunderstanding that the freely available BSDs are still under threat of litigation from AT&T? Regards, - H=E5vard To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-advocacy" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20000428140222P.he>