*BSD News Article 38765


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!comp.vuw.ac.nz!gcs.co.nz!amigans!durie!liam
From: liam@durie.wanganui.gen.nz (Liam Greenwood)
Subject: Is *BSD Unix? (was: Re: Is FreeBSD free?)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
Organization: It's Home, really...
Message-ID: <1994Dec3.084230.18858@durie.wanganui.gen.nz>
References: <1994Dec2.034142.18344@mcshub.dcss.mcmaster.ca> <3bn21t$qn6@orion.cc.andrews.edu>
Date: Sat, 3 Dec 1994 08:42:30 GMT
Lines: 31

Andrew Gillham (gillham@andrews.edu) wrote:

> Linux Is Not UniX

This is true.  Are any of the freely distributable BSD based 
systems Unix?  The manner in which you put the comment caused
me to think you were infering that FreeBSD _was_ Unix, whereas
I haven't seen any claims that any of the freely available
Unix-style operating systems had gone through the hoops required
to be Unix.*  If any have could you point me to any information
on which ones have, results, problems etc? Thanks.

If you were merely trying to point out that FreeBSD is built around
the code of Berkeleys' enhancements and replacements for the then 
AT&T Unix, then I would submit that anyones' code which provides the
same or similar functionality and interface as the collection of
Novell (nee USL, nee AT&T, nee ???) copyright code has as much 
claim to being called 'a unix' as the unencumbered code written by
Berkeley.

The various Berkeley releases are of course 'Unix' due to the fact
the basis of the system is Novell-owned code, plus the historical
relationship between AT&T (Bell Labs) and Berkeley which gave 
Berkeley permission to ship the source for BSD releases to sites
which have or had a source license from AT&T, by which action
AT&T appear to be saying '...these are the same thing, just 
different in detail'.

(* conformance certification by X/Open Co. Ltd.)

			Cheers, Liam