​Arghhh ​..  sorry you pushed a "Clem Hot Button" -- Traditional AT&T UNIX was always "Open Source" but it was licensed for $s however and you could see it unless you paid to get a ticket from AT&T.  But if you did, it was very open and if fact that is why Unix flourished.  I admit, I have found it fascinating to hear from many of you that you did not believe it was so easy to get access to the sources in those days, but the truth is - it was open and because it was open, an industry was born around UNIX.   Not the real "closed" systems of the day.

That said... the original code was never "Free and Open Source" - although some believe it was made so (such as the UCB lawyers described here and I'll not re-debate).   Others on this list, such as Larry, strongly believe that IP was ripped off and have argued that.  The argument about BSDi/386BSD/ et al is based is the "Free" part, not the "Open" part.

As I have pointed out, I switched from 386BSD to Linux because I was worried we were going to lose access to "free" UNIX.  This is very much the same as what happened by many other hackers in the day.  And as Larry points out, when people like Larry, me et al started hacking, Linux improved.   But the improvement happened because of the economics of the system.

The other issue is that economics of UNIX changed.  When UNIX was originally developed, for a University, the cost the systems was say 50-100K and the cost of Unix was at most $100.  For a firm it was $20K for the first system and 5K for each system there after.   Expensive, but manageable.

As for the cost of entry in a Unix system dropped to a $5-$10K for the HW and SW together, the AT&T went up to $100K for the first system and $20K for the second, although if got a redistribution license it could drop to about $1K per system (BTW - that was the big fight with MSFT during the time of the negotiation for what would become the System III license - Gates wanted to pay $25 per CPU for Xenix and we laughed at by AT&T, DEC, HP, IBM et al - I was in the room during that discussion in fact).

My point is that you (and many others)  equate "open" and "free" - I ask you to please not make that error.   Open means we can talk about it and share it, see it.  Which is exactly what we did "back in the day".  But as people pointed out you had to pay AT&T to be a member of the UNIX club if you were commercial, although any University type could be apart for free.   Note the university restrictions were imposed by them (for probably good reasons), but none the less - the code was open and >>was<< made available at many places.

But it was not "free."  Linus chose to make make Linux free, bless him.   This single act, changed the economic potential of his "product" and in the end, is what allowed it to expand.

But as I said, earlier today, this is right out Prof. Clay Christensen's disruptive technology theory.

Rant over....

Clem