Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!gatech!darwin.sura.net!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!rutgers!njitgw.njit.edu!eies2.njit.edu!ken From: ken@eies2.njit.edu (Kenneth Ng) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug8.175645.20087@njitgw.njit.edu> Date: 8 Aug 92 17:56:45 GMT References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk: <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Sender: news@njit.edu Organization: NJIT - EIES2 Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: eies2.njit.edu In article <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: :In article <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: :Not really. The Original UNIX was a "real world" replacement for Multics: :it lacked a lot of the features, but did pick up some of the basic ideas :(such as a shell-as-a-normal-program). :>It is blatantly derived from Multics. :It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there :was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the :other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with :this... :) I'm not sure if that was meant to be humorous, but I'll assume not. The most nebulous part of the USL suit is that they claim BSDI is a DERIVED (sp?) work. In other words, they claim that the *IDEAS* of UNIX(R) are theirs. Implimentation language is therefore not significant.