Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.apps:1670 comp.os.386bsd.development:3176 comp.os.386bsd.misc:5330 comp.unix.bsd:16122 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!news.ysu.edu!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!news.sprintlink.net!wizard.pn.com!satisfied.elf.com!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!nntp.club.cc.cmu.edu!cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!localhost!cgd From: cgd@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU (Chris G. Demetriou) Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.apps,comp.os.386bsd.development,comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: Cannons Away: Vote NO on newsgroup reformation. Date: 11 Feb 1995 00:32:50 GMT Organization: Kernel Hackers 'r' Us Lines: 62 Message-ID: <CGD.95Feb10193250@LAGAVULIN.PDL.CS.CMU.EDU> References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <kaleb.792343226@exalt> <3hebt1$1r2@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792415474@fedora.x.org> <3hgnh4$ff7@mudraker.mtholyoke.edu> <kaleb.792457691@exalt> NNTP-Posting-Host: lagavulin.pdl.cs.cmu.edu In-reply-to: kaleb@x.org's message of 10 Feb 95 23:08:11 GMT In article <kaleb.792457691@exalt> kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) writes: =>>>let's have it. But in the mean time McKusick, Bach (under the AT&T =>>>bannerhead no less, when AT&T still owned the UNIX trademark) and a =>>>whole raft of other recognized authorities are on the record as saying =>>>that BSD is UNIX, so until one of them tells me otherwise, I discount =>>>your assertion that *BSD is not BSD UNIX. => =>>It isn't for them to say, is it? => =>Are you suggesting that it's for you to say? Off hand I'd say that =>"they" have a lot more credibility than anyone else who's had their =>say here. Not having the exact "record" you claim to be quoting, i'd have to say that you're full of sh*t when if you say that Kirk McKusick (or other people formerly from Berkeley, say, Mike Karels) are on record saying that _4.4-Lite_ or _Net/2_ are UNIX. Hell, BSDI got sued over -- AND "LOST" -- the part of the suit regarding use of the UNIX brand. Net/2 and 4.4BSD-Lite, and systems derived therefrom are _NOT_ UNIX, unless X/Open says that they are. It is not your right, nor Kirk McKusick's right, nor Maurice Bach's right, nor Mike Karel's right, nor even Ken and Dennis's right (any more 8-) to call something UNIX. _ONLY_ X/Open has that right. PERIOD. >It's pretty simple really. comp.unix.bsd already exists. BSD is >recognized, by all the people who really count anyway, as a variant >or derivative of the UNIX operating system. 386BSD, FreeBSD, NetBSD >and BSD/OS are all derivatives in turn of a version of BSD. Except, if you use the word "derivative" in the sense of "derivative work", there _IS_ no common thread between UNIX and the various Lite-derived systems. If there were, that'd be copyright infringement, and the USL v. Regents suit might have been resolved significantly differently. > Just as > clearly as you are descended from your mother's mother, these operating > systems are derived from a version of UNIX. That's all the name of > the newsgroup means. To say otherwise would be tantamount to denying > that your grandmother is your grandmother. But, if your "blood" grandmother dies, and your grandfather remarries, is his new wife your grandmother? Not in terms of bloodlines. And neither is Lite derived from "UNIX". I was going to stay out of this, but I find Kaleb's complete misrepresentation of the derivation and branding of these systems to be reprehensible. I'm against the CVF's proposals, but for completely different reasons. cgd