Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 8th Jan 2009 00:15 UTC
GNU, GPL, Open Source Thanks to SGI, a potential disaster for Free software purists has been averted. Back in January 2008, it was discovered by the OpenBSD guys that some of the contributions to X.org and the Mesa 3D Graphics Library made by SGI were covered under permissive open source licenses that didn't fall within FSF's definition of Free software. The FSF Compliance Lab worked with SGI to resolve the issue, and they succeeded.
Thread beginning with comment 342895
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
demetrioussharpe
Member since:
2009-01-09

Seriously, you need help. Anyone who knows the history of the BSD's knows that BSD developers contributied large volumes code to improve AT&T Unix. When an issue came up in court & code was removed, the remaining codebase from BSD 4.4-lite is what was determined to belong to BSD. This is what the court determined. Therefore, by legal definition, it's not stolen. The court declared BSD the owner of the codebase in BSD 4.4-lite. This is the codebase that all modern BSD's are based off of. More things have come out of BSD & used in other systems, than vice versa. Hell, almost every OS alive is using a derivative of the BSD networking stack. Most modern *Nix derivatives are using XWindow servers that originated with BSD/MIT licenses. These things were around before GPL, LGPL, & some of the other licenses. So, who's stealing from who???

Reply Parent Score: 1

Moulinneuf Member since:
2005-07-06

Nice rewrite of history there.

But Then you won't have any trouble finding "the Judge and his judgment and what the court determined" and providing a copy/link here , to support your lies.

Your only problem is it was *settled* due to a third party who is the owner. That same owner faced SCO and lost who decided to claim ownership like BSD is doing now had trouble with.

"So, who's stealing from who?"


BSD's from other's.

Reply Parent Score: -1

demetrioussharpe Member since:
2009-01-09

Nice rewrite of history there.

But Then you won't have any trouble finding "the Judge and his judgment and what the court determined" and providing a copy/link here , to support your lies.

Your only problem is it was *settled* due to a third party who is the owner. That same owner faced SCO and lost who decided to claim ownership like BSD is doing now had trouble with.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi

BSD's from other's.




"USL v. BSDi was a lawsuit brought in the United States in 1992 by Unix System Laboratories against Berkeley Software Design, Inc and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property related to UNIX. The case was settled out of court in 1993 after the judge expressed doubt in the validity of USL's intellectual property, with USL and BSDi agreeing not to litigate further over the Berkeley Software Distribution (BSD), which would later develop into a range of BSD distributions, each tuned to its own specific audience's strengths and markets."

Now, if you'll notice, the judge didn't think that USL had any rights to the property. Basically, USL didn't have a leg to stand on as far as court cases go. So, USL settled out of court, which was basically the only logical choice. As a result of the settlement, the remaining code that was released as BSD-4.4-lite is wholly the property of BSDi. This has been argued & settled. Legally, the code wasn't stolen. If the code wasn't stolen, then there were no thieves there.

There's no doubt that you don't know what you're talking about. The history of ALL of the BSD branches are common knowledge. Also, BSD has it's own toolchain for code development. The GNU toolchain is mostly provided to allow the use & development of Linux apps. Now, where's your proof???

Reply Parent Score: 3