[GNUz] O/S compare

[Rik Tindall]

Thanks Wesley,


Wesley Parish wrote:

>>><Dale> All you need is to retain BSD license in the end product eg OSX.
>>>      
>>>
>Mach is licensed under the BSD-style license; actually closer to the 
>MIT-style:
>/* 
> * Mach Operating System
> * Copyright (c) 1991,1990,1989 Carnegie Mellon University
> * All Rights Reserved.
> * 
> * Permission to use, copy, modify and distribute this software and its
> * documentation is hereby granted, provided that both the copyright
> * notice and this permission notice appear in all copies of the
> * software, derivative works or modified versions, and any portions
> * thereof, and that both notices appear in supporting documentation.
> * 
>  
>
Word missing?:

> * CARNEGIE MELLON ALLOWS FREE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE IN ITS [current?]
> * CONDITION.  CARNEGIE MELLON DISCLAIMS ANY LIABILITY OF ANY KIND FOR
> * ANY DAMAGES WHATSOEVER RESULTING FROM THE USE OF THIS SOFTWARE.
> * 
> * Carnegie Mellon requests users of this software to return to
> * 
> *  Software Distribution Coordinator  or  Software.Distribution@CS.CMU.EDU
> *  School of Computer Science
> *  Carnegie Mellon University
> *  Pittsburgh PA 15213-3890
> * 
> * any improvements or extensions that they make and grant Carnegie the
> * rights to redistribute these changes.
> */
>
>Note "requests" not "demands".
>
Ah. Compatible freedoms. Shows up GNU's difference well - 'patriarchal' 
might describe the approach, to that software breeding process, where 
the offspring are related. Not popular..

>>OSX calls itself UNIX-based <http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/unix/>
>>rather than a BSD. Should I too? (I.e. not list OSX as a BSD).
>>
>>If Apple ever start selling OSX, then that would create a non-free BSD,
>>as I see it so far...
>>(CD sets are sold for reproduction cost only, for *BSD, historically.)
>>    
>>
>
>Well, SunOS used to be a non-free BSD, but then they also gave a lot back.  
>Indeed, a lot of what was called Unix(TM) was actually BSD.
>  
>
An 'out of circulation' BSDerivative is still a BSD? Ok, then that 
answers the OSX Q fully: as per BSD license option.

..Which means that 'BSD' describes an o/s family much more loosely than 
does 'GNU/Linux'. I'd better add a 'coherence factor' comparison. But 
then, the three o/s each have distinctive faults in that area..

The sense I'm getting is that BSD & UNIX are interchangeable terms, 
and/though the latter title has long been under ownership contention. 
'Gene dispertion' might describe how these are propagated (still 
searching for the best term there).

- Lots to consider when finding your home, amongst this chaotic field. 
Table modified; ..input most welcome.

Cheers, Rik