Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 10th Jan 2013 01:41 UTC, submitted by lucas_maximus
Thread beginning with comment 548209
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Laurence on Thu 10th Jan 2013 20:42
in reply to "RE[7]: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
BSD (and even AT&T UNIX) were open-source from the get-go. You couldn't get binaries for UNIX back in the day. You got tapes with the source on them, compiled them yourself, and installed it.
BSD was not "free software" according to the strange definitions of the GNU crowd. But it was (and always has been) open-source.
BSD was not "free software" according to the strange definitions of the GNU crowd. But it was (and always has been) open-source.
Sorry, I should have been more clear; BSD's source wasn't considered clear of all proprietary intellectual property when GNU started out.
RE[8]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by r_a_trip on Thu 10th Jan 2013 22:14
in reply to "RE[7]: not all these changes are strictly necessary"
RE[9]: not all these changes are strictly necessary
by Laurence on Fri 11th Jan 2013 08:15
in reply to "RE[8]: not all these changes are strictly necessary"




Member since:
2005-07-11
BSD (and even AT&T UNIX) were open-source from the get-go. You couldn't get binaries for UNIX back in the day. You got tapes with the source on them, compiled them yourself, and installed it.
BSD was not "free software" according to the strange definitions of the GNU crowd. But it was (and always has been) open-source.