8 Jun
2004
8 Jun
'04
2:35 p.m.
Hi, I have one question about 386BSD & NetBSD 0.8... If I'm right the reason that
they were 'pulled' was because of infringing AT&T code. However didn't
you need a 32v license to get access to 4.X BSD? So in that case since 32v is now public
wouldn't that allow these early self hosting BSD's to be 'free'
again???
Just wondering...
Jason
9 Jun
9 Jun
1:09 a.m.
On Tue, Jun 08, 2004 at 10:35:54AM -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
Hi, I have one question about 386BSD & NetBSD
0.8... If I'm right the reason that they were 'pulled' was because of
infringing AT&T code. However didn't you need a 32v license to get access to 4.X
BSD? So in that case since 32v is now public wouldn't that allow these early self
hosting BSD's to be 'free' again???
See ftp://minnie.tuhs.org/BSD which has Net/2, 386BSD 0.0 and 0.1.
Warren
12 Jun
12 Jun
5:37 a.m.
[Format recovered--see http://www.lemis.com/email/email-format.html]
Single line message
On Tuesday, 8 June 2004 at 10:35:54 -0400, Jason Stevens wrote:
Hi, I have one question about 386BSD & NetBSD
0.8... If I'm right
the reason that they were 'pulled' was because of infringing AT&T
code. However didn't you need a 32v license to get access to 4.X
BSD? So in that case since 32v is now public wouldn't that allow
these early self hosting BSD's to be 'free' again???
Yes, assuming SCO don't decide that they never released the software.
Greg
--
When replying to this message, please take care not to mutilate the
original text.
For more information, see http://www.lemis.com/email.html
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
7251
days inactive
7255
days old
2 comments
3 participants
participants (3)
-
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Jason Stevens -
Warren Toomey