Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:56:53 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jul24.185653.3196@kithrup.COM> References: <1992Jul22.163407.10823@Warren.MENTORG.COM> <1331@pacsoft.com> <1992Jul24.165236.10937@Warren.MENTORG.COM> Lines: 27 In article <1992Jul24.165236.10937@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >The press releases I was talking about MOSTLY mention OSF! Buying OSF >results in USL making 0 $$$. Not at the moment. The current OSF/1, which is based on Mach2.[56], requires a V32 source license, at the least. Since such aren't available anymore, you have to get a later version, probably SysVr4. 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. If OSF/1 becomes based on Mach3.0, *and* the UNIX servers are written from scratch, or based on ones that do not contain any USL code (such as the Net/2 based one, although that would be as debatable as BSDi's product), *then* purchasing an OSF/1 system might not cause in any license fees to USL. Maybe; it would depend on whether everything *else* had been purged of USL/AT&T code. Buying Motif from OSF results in USL making $0, true, but that is an entirely different kettle of fish. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah sef@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him." -----------------+ -- Jim Carrey Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.