Extending the cheap SCO src license

User Rdkeys Robert D. Keys rdkeys at seedlab1.cropsci.ncsu.edu
Mon Aug 3 23:42:53 AEST 1998

> > OK.  The current SCO license is limited specifically to 16 bit
> > systems.  We'd like to get, say, System V as well.
> > 
> > Greg
> After negotiating with SCO, I can safely say that they won't make System V
> cheaply available for any system, yet. Heck, they wouldn't even let us have
> the crippled System V for the PDP-11.

Do any of us really want SysV?  One can get that in a free license for unixware
or such, as it is, if I am understanding things correctly.

> You might be lucky to get System III added to the source license, and separate
> binary-only licenses for certain System V systems. That's another battle, tho.

Gee, I sense I have stirred up a wee bit of a hornets nest.  For the sake of
discussion, maybe that is good.

What I had originally thought was that it might be possible to include under
the PUPS banner (or whatever it is to be called {PUPS is fine to me}), to
include orphan unices.  Let me suggest that what I mean by orphan unices is
a flavor of unix in binary or source that is essentially commercially past
history.  That would specifically be to keep from camping on SCO's income.
What might be considered an orphan unix?  One might consider things like
the BSD tree to be orphan, as it relates to non-commercial use (one would
consider BSDI commercial, but most of the others non-commercial maybe).
One might consider something like Coherent to be non-commercial anymore.
Although that is not a ``true'' unix, it sure looks and feels the same
and quacks very much like a V7 or early SysV.  Xenix falls into the same
quacks like a duck category.  Although Xenix is still used commercially,
it may be be time to begin to consider that we might, in due time, aproach
SCO to offer a hobby style Xenix license of some sort.  I would not expect
them to offer source, although that might be workable after time.  One might
consider the old RT and PS/2 unices (AOS and AIX 1 and 2) to be orphanware.
I am sure there are others.  Perhaps even the 3Bx kind of thing could be
suitably binary hobby licensed.  I would have a hard time imagining that
SCO would consider the old ATT boxes any sort of a moneymaker these days.
Where SCO would feel that we are too close to home, then maybe only a
binary license of some sort would be all that we could collectively expect.
What about something like 386BSD?  That began in the 4.3BSD era if I am
reading things corectly, and it sure walks and quacks like the real thing.
These kinds of things, I would think, are of merit to keep archives of,
for the purposes and goals that we collectively seem be be heading towards.

Is this reasonable?

Just thinking out loud.....

If nothing else, the discussion is good.....

Bob Keys

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA14465
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 4 Aug 1998 00:16:35 +1000 (EST)

More information about the TUHS mailing list