On 6/4/06, Greg 'groggy' Lehey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sunday, 4 June 2006 at 9:35:47 +0200, Dag-Erling Smrgrav wrote:
> Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Dag-Erling Smørgrav <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> Allen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>>> Technically FreeBSD has more right than SCO UNIX to be called UNIX
>>> No. Unlike FreeBSD, SCO UnixWare is a direct descendent of the
>>> original AT&T Unix.
>>
>> So is / was Free BSD. That's why AT&T sued.
>
> It's not quite that simple. Even at the time of the lawsuit, BSD had
> very little AT&T code in it, and the lawsuit was sparked primarily by
> BSDI's unauthorized use of the Unix trademark. Read this:
>
> http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
There's a difference between technical and commercial rights. Allen
was referring to the technical issues.
How much code is in the source base is one issue, but I don't know if
I'd call it technical. During the attack on IBM, SCO accidentally
revealed that the base System V malloc is still the same as the
Seventh Edition malloc (something so horrible that BSD rewrote it
decades ago, and Linux people threw it out for ugliness without
knowing the origin).
But is that the technical aspect we mean? Throughout the 1980s System
V borrowed heavily from 4.[23]BSD. The Eighth Edition of Research
UNIX was derived from 4.1cBSD. From that perspective, I'd really be
inclined to think that BSD has more claim to be the real UNIX than
Missed'em V has.
How much would it take to get The Open Group to re-certify FreeBSD as
UNIX and what would it take for FreeBSD to meet the requirements for
UNIX certification, and would it be beneficial to FreeBSD if this
happened?
--
BSD Podcasts @:
http://bsdtalk.blogspot.com/
http://freebsdforall.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-chat
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
