root@cca.ucsf.edu (Systems Staff) (08/18/89)
Some time ago there were postings indicating the Mach project was
actively pursuing the replacement of the AT&T code in the BSD
compatibility component so that a full kernel source could be
distributed without requiring AT&T licenses.
The target date was supposed to be June 1989 in the last message
I saw. Can anyone provide authoritative information on the status
of this project?
Thos Sumner Internet: thos@cca.ucsf.edu
(The I.G.) UUCP: ...ucbvax!ucsfcgl!cca.ucsf!thos
BITNET: thos@ucsfcca
U.S. Mail: Thos Sumner, Computer Center, Rm U-76, UCSF
San Francisco, CA 94143-0704 USA
OS|2 -- an Operating System for puppets.
#include <disclaimer.std>naim@eecs.nwu.edu (Naim Abdullah) (08/19/89)
Thos Sumner writes: >Some time ago there were postings indicating the Mach project was >actively pursuing the replacement of the AT&T code in the BSD >compatibility component so that a full kernel source could be >distributed without requiring AT&T licenses. > >The target date was supposed to be June 1989 in the last message >I saw. Can anyone provide authoritative information on the status >of this project? I cannot provide "authoritative information", but in the GNU bulletin distributed in the June '89 USENIX by the Free Software Foundation, it says: > * Kernel > > We hope to use the MACH message-passing kernel being developed at > CMU. The current distributed version of MACH is not free because > it contains code from BSD of AT&T origin. However, the MACH > developers have been working to separate this code from the kernel > and they now say that they have a first version of this running in > alpha test. Once this is stable, the MACH kernel is supposed to > become free. > > Should MACH not become available, then we will start the kernel > with either MIT's TRIX kernel or Berkeley's Sprite system. > I hope this alpha testing finishes soon, and the freed MACH kernel can be shipped to FSF and the world! Naim Abdullah Dept. of EECS, Northwestern University Internet: naim@eecs.nwu.edu Uucp: {oddjob, chinet, att}!nucsrl!naim
damon@upba.UUCP (08/21/89)
> I hope this alpha testing finishes soon, and the freed MACH kernel can > be shipped to FSF and the world! I hope they finish soon also. A freely distributable kernel is a much desired thing. However, I am wondering about what restrictions FSF will place on it. I can just see the ideologues puting a copyleft on it requiring any program run on the OS to be freely distributable. I know it sounds silly, but so does half of the argument over gcc. I would like to see the MACH people retain rights and allow distribution term barring these types of restrictions.
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (08/22/89)
In article <1311000001@upba>, damon@upba writes: [Someone who damon didn't mention writes:] >> I hope this alpha testing finishes soon, and the freed MACH kernel can >> be shipped to FSF and the world! >I hope they finish soon also. A freely distributable kernel is a much >desired thing. However, I am wondering about what restrictions FSF will >place on it. I can just see the ideologues puting a copyleft on it >requiring any program run on the OS to be freely distributable. I sincerely doubt that the FSF will do this; in fact, I don't think they would be able to do it, just like they can't require that all files edited with GNU Emacs be under the terms of the copyleft. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
pardo@uw-june.cs.washington.edu (David Keppel) (08/23/89)
In article <1311000001@upba> damon@upba.UUCP writes: >[I hope that CMU finishes alpha test of the freely-distributable Mach > kernel soon. I am wondering about the restrictions FSF will place > on such a kernel. I can see a copyleft that requires any program > run on this kernel to be freely distributable. This is the problem > with gcc.] GNU will require that ``their'' version of the Mach kernel be freely distributable. They will not require all programs run on it to be freely distributable, because the programs will not be derived from the GNU Mach kernel. The `problem' with gcc is often misunderstood. A program compiled with gcc is not considered to be a ``derived'' work, and therefore is not subject to the copyleft. A program that uses part of gcc (for example is linked with the compiler) *is* derived from gcc and IF it is distributed at all, it must be freely distributable. A program that is distributed *linked* with the GNU runtime libraries must be freely distributable. If the program is distributed unlinked, then the user can linke with *any* standard libraries, and the program is not derived. Whew, I hope that was clear! Followups to gnu.misc.discuss. ;-D on ( To the appropriate GNUs group ) Pardo -- pardo@cs.washington.edu {rutgers,cornell,ucsd,ubc-cs,tektronix}!uw-beaver!june!pardo
mrd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Michael DeCorte) (08/26/89)
In article <1311000001@upba> damon@upba.UUCP writes: >I hope they finish soon also. A freely distributable kernel is a much >desired thing. However, I am wondering about what restrictions FSF will >place on it. I can just see the ideologues puting a copyleft on it >requiring any program run on the OS to be freely distributable. I know >it sounds silly, but so does half of the argument over gcc. I would like >to see the MACH people retain rights and allow distribution term barring >these types of restrictions. I hope that Gnu doesn't get hold of it. I have a problem with the Gnu licence basically it says that if I make changes to their program those changes become theirs. If I spend a year and port Gnu emacs to the mac making a really cool port those changes are the preoperty of FSF and I can't sell this version of Emacs. The result is that I won't ever so anything with anything of FSF. I have written programs that are freely distributable but I will never give them to FSF for these very reasons. I prefer the licencing of TeX much more. It basically says that TeX belongs to Knuth but if you make changes to TeX those changes are yours and you can do with them as you please (including selling them). The result is that I can BUY a version of TeX that will have support. I can not do that with Gnu Emacs. Nobody can sell it and things tend to get done fairly slowly if ever. To make matters worse I have to live with the political desisions of the FSF. They currently refuse to support the mac because of Apples law suits. There is a port of Gnu Emacs to the Mac but I can't get it from FSF and the person how did the port is out in the cold and most poeple don't know about it or ever will. If Gnu Emacs could be sold that port could be advertised in the Mac Mags and I could buy it and count on support. Instead I am guareenteed non support because of FSF's licencing and politics. Disclamer: I don't own a Mac or have any relation with them in any way. Nor am I planning or buying one. I use them as an example of the effects of FSF. I don't work for Clarkson nor do I represent their views. I do not represent the views of 3d Inc (the company I do work for). -- Michael DeCorte // H215-546-0497 W386-8164 Fax386-8252 // mrd@clutx.bitnet 2300 Naudain St. "H", Phil, PA 19146 // mrd@sun.soe.clarkson.edu --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Clarkson Archive Server // commands = help, index, send, path archive-server@sun.soe.clarkson.edu archive-server%sun.soe.clarkson.edu@omnigate.bitnet dumb1!dumb2!dumb3!smart!sun.soe.clarkson.edu!archive-server ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
mellon@zayante.pa.dec.com (Ted Lemon) (08/26/89)
Michael DeCorte sez, >The result is that I can BUY a version of TeX that will have support. >I can not do that with Gnu Emacs. Nobody can sell it and things tend >to get done fairly slowly if ever. Yes, you can. The difference is that the company that's supporting Emacs for you must give you the source code. This means that if you aren't satisfied with their support, you can fix it yourself. The GNU Public license doesn't forbid you to sell GNU Emacs for whatever price you want. It just forbids you to distribute the binary executable without also making the source available, and it forbids you to restrict the way those to whom you distribute the software may redistribute it. Also, as I and others have pointed out, there's no reason why GNU should be the sole distributor of Mach. If you want to hoard your changes, just use the CMU version of Mach. And if nobody buys your version of Mach because the GNU version is better, than the FSF's point is proven. If everybody flocks to buy your version, you can consider yourself the winner. I've redirected followups to gnu.misc.discuss. I don't think there's any reason to continue this discussion in comp.os.mach, since it seems to be degenerating into a ``Copyleft isn't fair'' vs ``Copyleft is god'' jihad. _MelloN_
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (08/28/89)
This has gotten a tad far-afield from taking about MACH, and so I've redirected followups to gnu.misc.discuss In article <MRD.89Aug25170616@sun.clarkson.edu>, mrd@sun (Michael DeCorte) writes: [Talking about MACH.] >I hope that Gnu doesn't get hold of it. I have a problem with the Gnu >licence basically it says that if I make changes to their program >those changes become theirs. This is simply not true. You can take programs that the FSF has written and distributes, hack them to your heart's content, and never tell another soul that you've done so. You certainly are under no obligation to inform the FSF of any changes or additions you make to any of their programs. >If I spend a year and port Gnu emacs to >the mac making a really cool port those changes are the preoperty of >FSF and I can't sell this version of Emacs. The result is that I >won't ever so anything with anything of FSF. I have written programs >that are freely distributable but I will never give them to FSF for >these very reasons. You can sell a modified version of GNU Emacs at whatever price you want to whomever you want. You are simply required to also supply source code to the version that you're selling. And, you can't tell the people you sell it to that they can't do whatever they want with it. The FSF massively encourages the sharing of software. You seem to desire the same thing, and yet you find the FSF's policies distasteful. I don't understand your position. >I prefer the licencing of TeX much more. It basically says that TeX >belongs to Knuth but if you make changes to TeX those changes are >yours and you can do with them as you please (including selling them). >The result is that I can BUY a version of TeX that will have support. >I can not do that with Gnu Emacs. Nobody can sell it and things tend >to get done fairly slowly if ever. Once again, you are wrong. There are companies that have added to and/or changed GNU Emacs, and are now selling their version of it, along with support. In addition, I know there are many consultants who would be willing to provide support for GNU programs. I find your impression of "things tending to get done fairly slowly if ever" rather puzzling; GNU Emacs is added to by thousands around the world. I've seen more new and useful changes for Emacs being posted to the net every six months than I've seen out of nearly any commerical product in years. Necessity is indeed the mother of new Emacs code. --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
fkittred@bbn.com (Fletcher Kittredge) (08/28/89)
Even if you knew what you were talking about, which clearly you don't, comp.os.mach would not be the apropriate forum to discuss the FSF license. Fletcher E. Kittredge fkittred@bbn.com