[Simh] Pontus asks Is [the] BSD [license] liberal enough?

[Clem Cole]

​below​

On Sun, Jun 7, 2015 at 8:51 PM, Cory Smelosky <b4 at gewt.net> wrote:

> OSF/1 1.0 and 2.0 sources ended up out somewhere...as I have sources to
> them.
>
​Interesting - based OSF/1 [386 probably] not Tru64 right?   DEC did a lot
of work to OSF/1 starting on the PMAX and then to Alpha. ​  And I do not
believe the sources were ever released by DEC or HP.

The base OSF/1 was done from the IBM System V.3 license buy out.   But DEC
never bought out its UNIX license like Sun and IBM [and I think I remember
HP did also, but I've forgotten that tid bit].  Have to check with TPM or
someone in the UNIX press from those days.




>   I have DG/US as well.
>
​Interesting - I did not believe they ever released that.​  I also do not
believe they bought their license from AT&T/Novell so how it was released
would be interesting to hear.





>
> Doesn't mean I can legally DO anything with it, though.
>
​Hmm, be careful here.   I'm not a lawyer - but I don't think you are
supposed to possess it either - even if it is "old" or abandoned.   That
said, as I understand it, I believe the remediation​ is to surrend all
copies to the owners of the IP [EMC in this case].   Many hackers take a
view that if they owner of the IP goes away, the code should go to the
public commons.   But the truth is that DG IP is owned by EMC, just as HP
owns the DEC IP assets.




>
> Apple are largely removing GPL'd stuff and going to differently-licensed
> stuff.
>
​Indeed but that's user space code.  Their kernel was never GPL'ed.  It was
a dead fish license (and I was just talking about the kernel).

Clem​
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20150607/1fb4fcaa/attachment-0001.html>