Why is csh `restricted'?

[Steven M. Schultz]

Warren -

> From: Warren Toomey <wkt at henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
> I didn't know that any of the sources in 1979 2bsd were contaminated with
> AT&T sources. I'll go and do a line comparison between V6 sh, V7 sh and

	Indeed they were.  ALL sources were considered "contaminated" or
	restricted - that's why for years and years the only 2.x (and 4.x) BSD
	sites were universities or other companies that had source licenses.

> the 2bsd csh, and see if I can find any signs of contamination.
> 
> What else in the original 2bsd is contaminated?

	Anything that I (or other contributors) didn't write ourselves.

	A good case can be made that stuff ported from 4.4-Lite is not
	contaminated (because 4.4-Lite had the legal blessings of AT&T)
	but I was told at one time anything based on the Net-2 stuff could be
	(is?) contaminated.  Alas by the time 4.4-Lite came out the software
	had bloated so much that very little of it can be ported over.  I 
	grabbed a few ideas and pieces out of the kernel - that's where the 
	"sysctl" stuff in 2.11 came from for example.  But the mainline
	applications are GNU based (megabytes and megabytes of memory assumed).
	I'd like to see someone getting GCC to run natively on a PDP-11! <grin>

	That's why the SCO "Ancient Unix" license is such a milestone event and
	is so important (perhaps more so than some folks realize).

	Up until this point you had to have a US$100K budget to gain access
	to the software we can legally obtain for $100 (no 'K') now.

	Steven

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA08456
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:01:18 +1100 (EST)