Subject: Re: Document: What's the difference between Linux and BSD?
To: None <>
From: Greg Lehey <>
List: netbsd-advocacy
Date: 04/29/2000 08:27:36
On Friday, 28 April 2000 at 14:02:22 +0200, wrote:
>>> 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?

Well, that's a separate point.  But the more important fact, as shown
in (which
doesn't show the correct derivation of the Eighth Edition), is that
BSD was derived from the Sixth and Seventh Editions of AT&T Research

>>> 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.

That's more correct, yes, but the it would just confuse the target
audience, and it's not strictly wrong as it stands.

> However, at the moment, there is no AT&T code left in the freely
> available BSDs, so what makes it then a derivative?

The genealogy.

> Won't this statement perpetuate the misunderstanding that the freely
> available BSDs are still under threat of litigation from AT&T?

Well, that's stated elsewhere.

Finger for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers