And, so, in theory, could all this OSX code be copied into
GNU/Linux and used there at no cost?
If it is gratis or not is not important, what is important is if it is
free software.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http:
therefore owned by Carnegie Mellon University.
Mach isn't owned by CMU either. The _copyright_holder_ is CMU.
___
Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list
Gnu-misc-discuss@gnu.org
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
>>> The Hurd developers concluded, as did many others before them,
>>> that Mach's performance and stability was insufficient.
We haven't concluded any such thing. Nor has anyone before us
concluded any such thing.
Mach is owned by GNU ( or licensed under GPL ).
You cannot own software
> Anyway, the original CMU license reads differently and can be found at
> http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/mach_13.html#SEC109>.
> So it would appear that not all versions of Mach were licensed alike.
And _that's_ the really important point.
Mach has been made available under various
> Rick wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:09:04 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>>
>>> Ku Karlovsky wrote:
>>>
>>>
The Hurd developers concluded, as did many others before them, that
Mach's performance and stability was insufficient. OS/X's kernel is a
monolithic kernel based on a rewri
John Bailo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> A license is something that comes with every copy. Whether or not the
>> copies the FSF distributes come under GPL does not influence the
>> license of other copies.
>
> According to the Mach license:
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/a
amosf wrote:
> I thought the os/x kernel was open source, at least parts of it? ie darwin
> 8.2 (core for os/x 10.4.2)
So Darwin = Open Source code for OS/X ?
Their page is a little confusing to me.
Is it the whole OS or just the GUI?
http://developer.apple.com/darwin/
And, so, in theory, c
David Kastrup wrote:
> A license is something that comes with every copy. Whether or not the
> copies the FSF distributes come under GPL does not influence the
> license of other copies.
According to the Mach license:
http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license.info
" 2. I
On Fri, 2005-07-15 at 01:49 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
> >> So shouldn't OSX be licensed under GPL then?
> >
> > BSD. And much if it is.
>
> I still don't understand.
>
> Mach is owned by GNU ( or licensed under GPL ).
>
> If OSX is based -- or includes -- Mach code, then doesn't that GPL OSX?
W
Rick wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 20:09:04 -0700, John Bailo wrote:
>
>> Ku Karlovsky wrote:
>>
>>
>>> The Hurd developers concluded, as did many others before them, that
>>> Mach's performance and stability was insufficient. OS/X's kernel is a
>>> monolithic kernel based on a rewritten Mach m
10 matches
Mail list logo
