home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
- Path: sparky!uunet!van-bc!tgivan!mak
- From: mak@tgivan.wimsey.bc.ca (Bob Makowski)
- Subject: Re: STREAMS and OSF [Was: AT&T vs. BSDI ad nauseam
- Message-ID: <1992Jul29.220142.3524@tgivan.wimsey.bc.ca>
- Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd
- Summary: STREAMS and OSF
- Keywords: STREAMS OSF licence
- Sender: mak@tgivan.wimsey.bc.ca
- Organization: Not Hardly
- References: <1331@pacsoft.com> <1992Jul24.165236.10937@Warren.MENTORG.COM> <1992Jul24.185653.3196@kithrup.COM>
- Distribution: na
- Date: Wed, 29 Jul 1992 22:01:42 GMT
- Lines: 26
-
- In article <1992Jul24.185653.3196@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
- >In addition, OSF specifically licensed parts of the SysVr3.x code from USL
- >in order to include it in OSF/1. Specifically, the STREAMS code, as there
- >were no such things in the original Mach code.
- >
-
- Sean,
-
- Are U sure?
-
- I was aware that OSF had a streams project ongoing, but I've heard nothing
- to suggest that OSF resolved this via the distribution, and concomitant
- royalties, of *any* post-SVR2 source baseline.
-
- (STREAMS circa) SVR3 and AT&T's licencing changes were major points
- of contention that eventually evolved into OSF. The problem was that AT&T's
- original SVR3 licence was contrived to require SVID compliance for the
- entire O/S, and not just the portion that a vendor ported from SVR3. A big
- bruhaha resulted in relaxing into a piecemeal SVID compliance revision of
- the licencing agreement, but I've noticed that every OSF vendor only cites
- AT&T/UNIX copyrights through SVR2 to this day.
-
- There's more to this saga, which is important to note in the AT&T/BSDI
- thread, but I haven't completed my review thereof.
-
- = Mak
-