uban@cssisg.dec.com (02/18/89)
In mail posted: 15 Feb 89 21:11:17 GMT, Steve Cumming stevec@lccr.cs.sfu.ca {uunet|...}!ubc-cs!fornax!stevec
writes:
>
> I plan to buy my Very Own Computer one day soon.
> I want it to be fast, powerful, Unix like - as much
> . . .
> I also want source code, for several reasons, all of
> which I am sure are familiar to all of us.
> All my own experience at work moves me to insist
> on source.
> . . .
> Where does this leave me? I am going to wait until the
> FSF has a kernel working.
> . . .
> And about two years later, if not sooner, some outfit will
> start selling iron that FSF kernels are specially good with.
> . . .
Waiting for FSF to do it will probably be the only way most
individuals can end up with Un*x-ish source on any machine
that they personally own and control.
Mach (I think) and BSD and others are all limbs on the source tree
that roots back to AT&T. Any group or individual that wants source
to -any- of these must also purchase a source license from AT&T.
This runs a tidy $15K to $40K, depending on discounts, I believe.
Therefore NeXT may not, by law, distribute any source except to
organizations or individuals already licensed. BSD is the same -
once one has a license, then one can simply ask Berkely for a
source tape, but not before. Even within organizations, separate
groups must have separate source licenses to work on or even view
the source, it seems. We find that here at DEC, I've heard, even
though Ultrix is one of our main products. Universities with source
have purchased the license. One who works at a university and
buys, say, a SUN, may not copy the university's SUN source to their
personal machine. This fact will probably never change.
- Jim
- uban%cssisg@decwrl.dec.comjtn@potomac.ads.com (John T. Nelson) (02/20/89)
> > I also want source code, for several reasons, all of > > which I am sure are familiar to all of us. > > Waiting for FSF to do it will probably be the only way most > individuals can end up with Un*x-ish source on any machine > that they personally own and control. > > Mach (I think) and BSD and others are all limbs on the source tree > that roots back to AT&T. Any group or individual that wants source > to -any- of these must also purchase a source license from AT&T. My understanding is that the AT&T code is being removed from Mach. Several peices of BSD are also being made public domain. If Mach can be completely un-encumbered then it will be possible for FSF to base their GNU product on Mach.... ...thus a freely copiable source code Unix (Mach + GNU actually). Check out the latest GNU newsletters.
w-colinp@microsoft.UUCP (Colin Plumb) (02/24/89)
uban@cssisg.dec.com wrote: > Mach (I think) and BSD and others are all limbs on the source tree > that roots back to AT&T. Any group or individual that wants source > to -any- of these must also purchase a source license from AT&T. > This fact will probably never change. I beg to differ on that last point. You may have noticed almost 7.5 megabytes of 4.3BSD sources on uunet. It seems this is the part of the 4.3BSD Tahoe distribution that BSD has determined contains no AT&T code. And my understanding is that, due to AT&T being nasty, they're trying to get rid of the AT&T code in 4.3, so it can all be publicly distributed. So it seems that the GNU project is gaining allies. There is every hope that a good, free OS will exist in the future. I am, of course, tremendously pleased! On the same subject: I can't find the GCC sources on the 0.8 OD. Have I missed them, or the three-year offer of source for a nominal fee? -- -Colin (uunet!microsoft!w-colinp) "Don't listen to me. I never do."