Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:14507 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3040 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!gatech!rutgers!uwvax!oka.cs.wisc.edu!jcargill From: jcargill@oka.cs.wisc.edu (Jon Cargille) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD - NeXT Date: 5 Aug 1994 17:52:02 GMT Organization: U of Wisconsin CS Dept Lines: 26 Message-ID: <31tu82$p3d@spool.cs.wisc.edu> References: <MYCROFT.94Jul24025605@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> <31rudm$he4@wombat.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> NNTP-Posting-Host: oka.cs.wisc.edu In article <31rudm$he4@wombat.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au>, Chris Bitmead <chrisb@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> wrote: > >Out of interest, how did NeXT get out of being sued? Isn't it based on >bsd? Did they not use any disputed code or what? > NeXT's OS was based on Mach 2.5, which basically is a Mach kernel which incorporates Unix pieces-parts in it. Mach 2.5 can't run at all without those pieces, unlike Mach 3.0 which can run by itself. Mach 2.5 has never been considered "free", and to get a copy of it from CMU you have always been required to have an AT&T source license. The non-unix bits were freely redistributable, but the unix-bits weren't. So NeXT never was using freely-redistributable BSD pieces, and presumably they have always had the appropriate licenses with AT&T/USL. Jon -- -.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-. Jon Cargille jcargill@cs.wisc.edu Want your .sig compressed? Reasonable rates and fast turnaround. Call today!