rvb@natasha.mach.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Baron) (10/05/90)
Let me clarify things. The real problem here is that CMU is not a company; it is an educational institution. The license it has for Unix (from AT&T) is an educational license. This means that WE CAN NOT SELL binaries and sources to anyone. (We can distribute sources and binaries to people that already have AT&T commercial or educational source licenses. And we actively do this.) Berkeley is in the same boat. They can not sell you their binaries either. Now if you are willing to give us or Berkeley several hundred thousand dollars (around $200,000 I beleive) so that we can acquire such a license, then someone could get excited about distributing the Mach system. So unless some company that has already paid for the rights to distributed Unix decides to acquire and distribute Mach, I'm afraid there can be no mass Mach 386 distribution. And I'd be surprised if this company would GIVE Mach away. If for no other reason than, it would have to pay AT&T a royalty on each sale.
melling@cs.psu.edu (Michael D Mellinger) (10/05/90)
In article <10665@pt.cs.cmu.edu> rvb@natasha.mach.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Baron) writes:
Let me clarify things. The real problem here is that
CMU is not a company; it is an educational institution.
The license it has for Unix (from AT&T) is an educational
license. This means that WE CAN NOT SELL binaries and
sources to anyone. (We can distribute sources and binaries
to people that already have AT&T commercial or educational
source licenses. And we actively do this.) Berkeley is in
the same boat. They can not sell you their binaries either.
Now if you are willing to give us or Berkeley several
hundred thousand dollars (around $200,000 I beleive) so that
we can acquire such a license, then someone could get excited
about distributing the Mach system.
So unless some company that has already paid for the rights to
distributed Unix decides to acquire and distribute Mach, I'm
afraid there can be no mass Mach 386 distribution. And I'd
be surprised if this company would GIVE Mach away. If for
no other reason than, it would have to pay AT&T a royalty on
each sale.
Will CMU have an AT&T free version of Mach within the next year? I've
heard that Mach 3.0 will have all of the AT&T code removed.
-Mikeryan@berlin-gw.diag.stratus.com (Dan Guilderson) (10/05/90)
Supposedly CMU is working on stripping all the AT&T code out of Mach 2.5 and shipping it as Mach 3.0 which could then be freely distributed software. In the Free Software Foundation's bulletin of June 1990 they mentioned that Mach 3.0 might be available by the beginning of the summer. That was over 3 months ago and still no sign of 3.0 in sight. I believe that at one time Mach 3.0 had been promised for much earlier still. I can't understand why there has been such a delay. It's very frustrating for net people who would just love to get their hands on it. -- Dan Guilderson ryan@berlin-gw.diag.stratus.com Stratus Computer, Inc., Marlboro, MA, USA #include <stddisclaimer.h>
cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (10/05/90)
In article <10665@pt.cs.cmu.edu> rvb@natasha.mach.cs.cmu.edu (Robert Baron) writes: >... >Now if you are willing to give us or Berkeley several >hundred thousand dollars (around $200,000 I beleive) so that >we can acquire such a license, then someone could get excited >about distributing the Mach system. >... >be surprised if this company would GIVE Mach away.... OK, so how about CMU (Carnegie Mellon University) just finish the job and rewrite the rest of UNIX under Mach and release it into the public domain. And while we're talking Mach, I'd like an answer to the following question: How much, if any, money that went into Mach came from United States tax dollars?.. either directly or indirectly, including NSF or other scientific forms of funding... and into Mach in ANY form, including graduate student funding? The reason I ask should be obvious... here you'd have people with 386's who paid for Mach and who can't even be Beta sites. By the way, wouldn't the Free Software Foundation (GNU) be a great place to distribute Free Mach? ... just a reminder: take it from the greedy and give it to the needy -- Chuck Herrick cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu
Rick.Rashid@CS.CMU.EDU (10/06/90)
Chuck,
I can answer your major questions as follows:
1) CMU is in fact working to provide a freely distributable version
of both the Mach kernel and a Unix compatible environment. We
are cooperating in this effort with many other groups including FSF.
2) Mach has been primarily funded by the US Govt. All work done by
CMU on Mach has been distributed by CMU with no license fee and
not even a distribution or media charge. To the extent that we
distribute software done by others we must abide by their
licensing and distribution rules.
-Rickcnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu (Chuck Herrick) (10/07/90)
In article <RYAN.90Oct5095522@berlin-gw.diag.stratus.com> ryan@berlin-gw.diag.stratus.com (Dan Guilderson) writes: ... )I believe that at one time Mach 3.0 had been promised )for much earlier still. I can't understand why there has been such a )delay. It's very frustrating for net people who would just love to get )their hands on it. hmmmm... why is there such a delay, CMU? -- Chuck Herrick cnh5730@calvin.tamu.edu