20 May
2021
20 May
'21
4:36 a.m.
On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:33 PM Jason Stevens <
jsteve(a)superglobalmegacorp.com> wrote:
Nobody ever said peep when I ‘mashed’ enough 386BSD
and what was available
from NetBSD 0.9 and the NetBSD 0.8 to make 0.8 work… The closest I got is
‘why do you want that we have version 17!’ or whatever $HEAD is . I guess
in the same way I was more interested in preserving 386BSD 0.0, and again
nobody ever told me to stop.
I guess in the same way nobody told me to stop making Mach 2.6 available,
or even Darwin 0.3 for i386.
I wanted to take that IBM 4.4BSD and try to replace enough of 386BSD 0.1
pl32 to have something more akin to ‘real’ 4.4 BSD. Although I have a
bunch of things I need to wrap up before I take that on (people are
actually looking for bug fixes for Quake II on MS-DOS of all things….).
I don’t think its exactly policed like 1984, although I think people are
more excited about RIAA/MPAA than things like Unix.
Part of the problem too isn't so much who owns the copyrights, but whether
or not the copyrights for the
V7 and earlier actually exist and are valid. One of the reasons the BSD
suit was settled was at the time
the judge strongly telegraphed that there wasn't a valid copyright by
western union based on the copyright
law at its time of creation.... So even the question of who owns the unix
copyright might not be as simple
as all that... The stuff is so old, there's no money in removing any of the
ambiguity for the current copyright
holders (to the extent that it is valid), so we're left with a lot of
possibility, but no certainty. Though given the
Supreme Court's latest 'fair use' rulings, it wouldn't surprise me if
were
it to wind up in court if that didn't
further weaken the answer to the point where it just doesn't matter what
the underlying details are, copying
and making a derived work would be OK. Though that's my own layman's best
guess...
Warner
(shrug)
*From: *Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog(a)lemis.com>
*Sent: *Saturday, May 16, 2020 9:41 AM
*To: *Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com>
*Cc: *The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
*Subject: *Re: [TUHS] Status of Net/2
On Friday, 15 May 2020 at 18:49:44 -0600, Warner Losh wrote:
What's the current status of net/2?
I ask because I have a FreeBSD 1.1.5.1 CVS repo
that I'd like to make
available. Some of the files in it are
encumbered, though, and the
University of California has communicated that
fact. But what does
that
actually mean now that V7 has been released and
that's what the files
were
based on? Are they no longer encumbered?
To the best of my knowledge, Net/2 would be covered by the license
granted by Caldera on 23 January 2002:
Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that
includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source
code, including creating derived binary products created from the
source code. The source code for which Caldera International,
Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating
Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of
the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX
System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems:
32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
I'm attaching the PDF of the license agreement, along with an email
from Dion Johnson to wkt (misspelt as wht) the following day.
It doesn't specifically address any particular operating system, but
it was my understanding that this would free all BSD versions.
Greg
--
Sent from my desktop computer.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
This message is digitally signed. If your Microsoft mail program
reports problems, please read http://lemis.com/broken-MUA