Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 21:46:24 -0700 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: "Pedro F. Giffuni" <pfgiffun@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co> Cc: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au>, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: More on the Intel-UNIX standard Message-ID: <199809210446.VAA03265@word.smith.net.au> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sun, 20 Sep 1998 22:19:39 CDT." <3605C5CB.C61EAC21@bachue.usc.unal.edu.co>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> Mike Smith wrote: > > > > > I'm concerned about the SNR in hackers, but I just couldn't resist > > > asking if someone was aware and acting on this > > > http://www.sco.com/udi/ > > > > Yes, we're aware of it. What is there to act on? > > > Mail the key actors and ask for a prerelease to work on it. Not available at this time. Such an action would only be worthwhile if I (or the person making the request) had time to work on it either personally or donated by another developer. All of the requisite documentation is already available online, so an implementation from scratch would be relatively straightforward. > > > It will be ported for Linux and distributed as freeware, as far as SCO > > > knows... > > > > There is pressure for Intel to include a Linux implementation as part > > of the deliverables for UDI. As such, it may be contaminated by the > > GPL. > > It WILL be ported, as an SCO announce says. I don't have confirmation of the Linux port as part of the deliverables. This wouldn't be the first time that a press release was retracted or contradicted in a later instance of reality. Regardless, the chances are high that it will indeed be done. > A GPL is inconvenient because companies won't want to be forced to > distribute source code of a key part with the OS. GPL was designed to > live only with GPL and I don't think Compaq, IBM and SUN will accept it. > We must start pressing for a BSD-like license here. > OTOH the Open Group is already understanding ... There's no need for the reference implementation to be GPL-contaminated - it can be shipped as patches to the Linux kernel rather than integrated with it, and those patches need not be GPL'ed. Regardless, as I have tried to make clear before, a reference implementation for Linux would not be something that could be "ported" to FreeBSD. A UDI implementation is a mapping from the host API to the UDI API, and the mapping from Linux-kernel-API:UDI-API would look nothing like the mapping from BSD-kernel-API:UDI-API. -- \\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith \\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au \\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org \\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199809210446.VAA03265>