According to John L Fjellstad, > John Summerfield <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > For starters, depends on what you mean by "linux." At its most basic, > > Linux is the kernel. More usually, people use the term to refer to a > > complete set of sofware such as might be found on your computer and > > mine. > > I was thinking in terms of GNU/Linux (with emphasis on the GNU part, > when I think about it). > > > I saw in a paper someplace the term "genetic unix" used to refer to > > descendants from the original Unix. > > > > Linux is not that, though it could contain some code that is descended > > from that. Some other OS operating systems (FreeBSD etc) are genetic > > linux. > > You mean unix. Didn't the *BSD people remove all AT&T code? > > > There is a standard, POSIX, to which operating systems must comply in > > order to be considered Unix (non-TM). Linux aims to comply, but lacks > > any necessary certification. > > I guess what I'm asking is, are those OSes that weren't using the > original AT&T code (Minix, GNU, I'm guessing the different BSDs after > the lawsuit and settlement) considered to be unix or a totally different > kind of OSes?
As I understand it those who actually know the details of the settlement also agreed to secrecy, but the story I hear is that there was as much BSD code misappropriated into ATT Unix as vice versa, so they just gave license to each others' code. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
