From owner-freebsd-advocacy  Fri Apr 28  5: 3:46 2000
Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org
Received: from vader.runit.sintef.no (vader.runit.sintef.no [129.241.100.134])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E08837BDF8
	for <FreeBSD-advocacy@freebsd.org>; Fri, 28 Apr 2000 05:03:43 -0700 (PDT)
	(envelope-from he@runit.sintef.no)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by vader.runit.sintef.no (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id OAA28749;
	Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:02:24 +0200 (MEST)
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?
From: Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 27 Apr 2000 14:02:43 +0930"
	<20000427140242.M55780@freebie.lemis.com>
References: <20000427140242.M55780@freebie.lemis.com>
X-Mailer: Mew version 1.93 on Emacs 19.34 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <20000428140222P.he@runit.sintef.no>
Date: Fri, 28 Apr 2000 14:02:22 +0200
X-Dispatcher: imput version 980905(IM100)
Lines: 32
Sender: owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG
Precedence: bulk
X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG

> > 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