Subject: Re: Document: What's the difference between Linux and BSD?
To: None <firstname.lastname@example.org>
From: None <Havard.Eidnes@runit.sintef.no>
Date: 04/28/2000 14:02:22
> > I would not call the BSD systems "derivatives of AT&T's UNIX".
> > In fact, the entire point of the Lite stuff is that there is
> > *no* derivation, in a legal/copyright sense, which is why BSD is
> > allowed to exist.
> I wasn't talking in a legal or copyright sense. A lot of the code
> in BSD is also in System V, and Research UNIX editions 8 to 10
> were derived from 4.1cBSD. I think we can let this one stand.
Well, that doesn't make BSD derived from AT&T UNIX -- in those cases
it's the other way around, isn't it?
> > If you compare AT&T UNIX(tm) to BSD, in practice, the systems
> > diverged from about V7 - BSD is more like V7 than it is like
> > System III or V.
> That's why :-)
If you still want to claim that BSD is derived from AT&T UNIX, I
would probably add "research" between AT&T and UNIX, as in
In fact, the BSD operating systems are open source derivatives of
AT&T's research UNIX operating system, not clones.
However, at the moment, there is no AT&T code left in the freely
available BSDs, so what makes it then a derivative? Won't this
statement perpetuate the misunderstanding that the freely available
BSDs are still under threat of litigation from AT&T?