Date: Thu, 29 Jan 1998 20:34:20 -0600 (CST) From: "Matthew D. Fuller" <fullermd@futuresouth.com> To: Jamie Howard <howardjp@dragon.ham.muohio.edu> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, dmaddox@scsn.net, Greg Lehey <grog@lemis.com>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The BSD License Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.96.980129203238.4784D-100000@shell.futuresouth.com> In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.3.95.980129205556.8426A-100000@dragon.ham.muohio.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 29 Jan 1998, Jamie Howard wrote: > On Fri, 30 Jan 1998, Mike Smith wrote: > > > - If source code is not available and freely redistributable, it is > > impossible for it to be included in the FreeBSD codebase. (This is > > really a no-brainer). > > Hello, I've been lurking around this mailing list for a spell now and > recently considered this question myself. I am confused by the above > statement. Was Sun Microsystems legally bound to (a) make the source to > SunOS available and (b) make the source code available for free? What > about others like DEC and Ultrix or OSF/1 or NeXT and NeXTStep? That's easy. That's because FreeBSD requires that all source in the base OS is freely distributable, so anything we add in has to be under such a license. SunOS et al have no such restriction; they license their source out for mega $, and aren't really under any compulsion to do so, other than the fact that most people demand to at least be able to BUY the source. *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-* | FreeBSD; the way computers were meant to be | * "The only reason I'm burning my candle at both ends, is * | that I haven't figured out how to light the middle yet."| * fullermd@futuresouth.com :-} MAtthew Fuller * | http://keystone.westminster.edu/~fullermd | *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.980129203238.4784D-100000>