Has anyone looked at apple's license for Darwin lately?
I looked at it when Darwin first came out. Looked extremely
restrictive to me.
On 5 Apr 2000, at 22:46, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Apr 2000, Leimy wrote:
>
> > Mach based BSD? I thought it was a microkernel.... I wasn't sure
> > though. What does this mean for the HURD?
>
> Mach is the microkernel (based on 3.0 I believe). The BSD/Darwin part
> is very likely just a mach single server like Lites and mkLinux (but I
> haven't looked at it closely yet).
>
> As far as Hurd is concerned, I don't know .... I remember once reading
> a paper somewhere that Hurd was built on top of a Mach 4.0 derived
> source, and this was because the older 3.0 source had short comings
> which would have made it difficult to work with (someone please
> correct me if I am wrong).
>
> If hurd can in fact be ported/run on to of a mach 3.0 based kernel,
> then I think a switch to the mach/darwin microkernel would be a big
> win (but that task might be very hard or impossible, and of course the
> licensing would have to be reviewed in detail). The Gnu/Linux/BSD
> crowd could leverage their skills for Intel device drivers (which
> would ultimately help Darwin succeed on Intel) and Apple would provide
> a PPC microkernal port with device drivers which Hurd could utilize
> for an easy PPC port.
>
> But somewhere I remember GNU having a big problem with Apple (hmm, was
> it the old MS vs. Apple look-n-feel thing) and don't know if they have
> forgiven them yet ;)
>
> Dunno, just my $.02
>
> -- jim
>
>
>
