Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!wuarchive!cs.utexas.edu!ico!rcd From: rcd@ico.isc.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.sysv386 Subject: Re: OS costs Summary: no, not that simple... Message-ID: <1990Sep19.172936.10035@ico.isc.com> Date: 19 Sep 90 17:29:36 GMT References: <36054@unix.cis.pitt.edu> <70400021@m.cs.uiuc.edu> Organization: Interactive Systems Corporation, Boulder, CO Lines: 20 hart@blackjack.dt.navy.mil (Michael Hart) writes: [I had written...] > >The BSD license is about as cheap and un-restrictive as they come; it's the > >next best thing to PD... > Do I read the above correctly re: BSD licenses? Can anyone (or almost anyone) > get a BSD license for source code? I thought it was much more restrictive. > > Anyone have the straight poop on this, and care to share it??? Sorry to have confused you. The BSD license _per_se_ is not very restrictive. The one catch (but it's a big one!) is that to get the BSD source for anything they'll send out that's got AT&T code in it, or is based on AT&T code, you need the (restrictive, expensive) AT&T source license. There are things like the networking code that are available under only the BSD license, but there isn't a complete system that way. -- Dick Dunn rcd@ico.isc.com -or- ico!rcd Boulder, CO (303)449-2870 ...Worst-case analysis must never begin with "No one would ever want..."