Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!yarrina.connect.com.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!spool.mu.edu!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mycroft From: mycroft@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Hannum) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: 4.4-lite? Date: 24 Jul 1994 22:59:50 GMT Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 64 Message-ID: <MYCROFT.94Jul24185950@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <2vgvc7$3tg@spruce.cic.net> <30finf$98e@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <Ct75oE.75p@newsserver.aggregate.com> <30h9jl$fg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <Ct8o9E.8My@newsserver.aggregate.com> <30lpld$a7u@quagga.ru.ac.za> <MYCROFT.94Jul21211839@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <30oloq$7k7@quagga.ru.ac.za> NNTP-Posting-Host: duality.ai.mit.edu In-reply-to: csgr@cs.ru.ac.za's message of 22 Jul 1994 14:40:26 GMT In article <30oloq$7k7@quagga.ru.ac.za> csgr@cs.ru.ac.za (Geoff Rehmet) writes: The net is a valid place to ask questions. I was asking a question which is relevant to the problems relating to USL's claims about certain files - [...] Nonsense. It wasn't even a valid question, since you had no way of knowing, before I said so, that our agreement with USL required adding USL copyright notices to any files. Furthermore, you very well know that most of the NetBSD group only read Usenet sparingly. (Actually, I only do when someone tells me there's a flame war raging and some actual facts are needed.) Frankly, legal matters, in general, should *not* be discussed in public. Hell, CSRG wouldn't tell you the result of their settlement last I knew, and yet you're apparently willing to believe that code is free. I don't need to go scrounging through the whole NetBSD source tree to check for myself - I was assuming that I could get an honest answer on the net. And you did get an honest answer. I said our tree is USL-free, and it is. That's as much answer as anyone should need, unless you believe that I am lying or have no clue. In fact, we're actually complying with what we see as the `worst case' interpretation of agreement, since there are a couple of (minor) points that are not entirely clear. Charles - I post a query, you get your balls tied in a knot! It's hard for me to believe that your posting was so innocent, given the past content of this thread. In fact, I quote from a prior article of yours: As I understand it NetBSD is still using a source tree which is derived from the Net/2 tape, and not the 4.4Lite tape (correct me if I am wrong), so I don't think that NetBSD-1.0 can claim to be 4.4BSD-based. The fact is, our kernel, and parts of user-land (mostly related to file systems), *are* based on 4.4-Lite. This has been stated repeatedly, and yet you continued to refute it without evidence. It is *not* necessary to throw away our entire code history to accomplish that goal, and I personally would find it highly irresponsible of us to do so. I consider your statements inflammatory. You posted as if what were saying was fact, when in truth it was wrong, and you just hadn't bothered to check or even listen at all. This is standard Usenet technique, and one of the primary reasons I can't stand reading Usenet. Questions are okay; statements of false `facts' are *not*. -- - Charles Hannum NetBSD group Working ports: i386, hp300, amiga, sun4c, mac68k, pc532, da30. In progress: sun3, pmax, vax, sun4m.