Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site munnari.OZ Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!gatech!seismo!munnari!kre From: kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz) Newsgroups: net.bugs.uucp Subject: Re: multihop uucp Message-ID: <1032@munnari.OZ> Date: Mon, 13-Jan-86 13:33:24 EST Article-I.D.: munnari.1032 Posted: Mon Jan 13 13:33:24 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 15-Jan-86 00:26:25 EST References: <1564@emory.UUCP> <425@hoptoad.uucp> Organization: Comp Sci, Melbourne Uni, Australia Lines: 37 In article <425@hoptoad.uucp>, gnu@hoptoad.uucp (John Gilmore) writes: > It's a shame that ATT won't let BSD adopt stuff from sysV so this could > be made to work. (The problem is all the BSD sites that have pre-sysV > licenses. ATT won't let them get sysV derived code.) So much for ATT > working to unify the unixverses. I don't think that's really the problem - for some time now Berkeley have made it plain that at some future time, a SysV licence would be a requirement for some unknown future unspecified Berkeley release. The problem at the minute is that SysV licences aren't interchangable, AT&T in their infinite wisdom have decided that if you have a 68K Sys V licence (for example) than you cannot be given code derived from a Vax Sys V. This is (I believe) the major hurdle at the minute preventing Berkeley from requiring Sys V licences - which Sys V licence would it be? Of course, that's simple, Berkeley would have to require a Vax Sys V licence, but can you imagine the conversation... Person: "Here's my Sys V licence, signed Berkeley licence (2 copies), and your $$$, can I have a BSD tape please?" Berkeley: "No" Person: "Why?" Berkeley: "Your Sys V licence is for a 68k, not a vax" Person: "But I don't have a Vax, I have a 68K!" Berkeley: "Talk to AT&T... It will cost you another $48,000" This is absurd, rather than unifying the "unixverses", AT&T seem to be specifically diversifying them. Wierd! Robert Elz seismo!munnari!kre kre%munnari.oz@seismo.css.gov