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