Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions,alt.suit.att-bsdi Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!sgi!igor!jbass From: jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) Subject: Re: 386BSD vs BSDI Message-ID: <1993Mar5.202320.9758@igor.tamri.com> Organization: DMS Design References: <C3BsBv.2xHu@austin.ibm.com> <1993Mar3.214122.20180@igor.tamri.com> <C3DE19.10z6@austin.ibm.com> Date: Fri, 5 Mar 93 20:23:20 GMT Lines: 21 In article <C3DE19.10z6@austin.ibm.com> guyd@austin.ibm.com (Guy Dawson) writes: > >It the *FILE* ( the text ) that is copyright *NOT* the interface >defined in it. Your claim is that anything put into a header file (and by extention you almost claim anything visable in the global extern list) is an interface .... but by who's choice? Certainly not AT&T/USL since they made no claim of public interfaces at V7/32V. SVR4 on the otherhand does. My point is that this is a TOTALLY unreasonable claim requiring anyone that wishes to protect their software go back to the dark ages of not using header files and not using proceedures. Certainly not EVERYTHING in all of /usr/include/* and subdirectories represents an interface that AT&T/USL wished published. If this were the way of publishing the kernel public interfaces, they certainly would have choosen a much different set of header files and locations. John Bass DMS Design