Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.linux:34750 comp.os.386bsd.questions:1705 Newsgroups: comp.os.linux,comp.os.386bsd.questions Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!news.amherst.edu!twpierce From: twpierce@unix.amherst.edu (Tim Pierce) Subject: Re: Summary of Linux vs. 386BSD vs. Commercial Unixes Message-ID: <C5nwI4.4v1@unix.amherst.edu> Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss Organization: Blasny Blasny, Consolidated (Amherst, MA Offices) References: <1993Apr15.225354.18654@samba.oit.unc.edu> <1993Apr17.175431.25015@coe.montana.edu> <1993Apr17.190517.4276@serval.net.wsu.edu> <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> Date: Sun, 18 Apr 1993 04:30:04 GMT Lines: 13 In article <1993Apr17.205715.11278@coe.montana.edu> nate@cs.montana.edu (Nate Williams) writes: >No, my purpose is to make 386BSD completely re-distrubutable, with NO >strings attached. That means Sun, DEC, HP, Ren and Stimpy, or whoever >can take this code and sell a binary copy of it. The GPL does not allow >this. You really think that? Snort. -- ____ Tim Pierce / ?Usted es la de la tele, eh? !La madre \ / twpierce@unix.amherst.edu / del asesino! !Ay, que graciosa! \/ (BITnet: TWPIERCE@AMHERST) / -- Pedro Almodovar