Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!rutgers!lll-lcc!ptsfa!hoptoad!academ!uhnix1!nuchat!steve
From: steve@nuchat.UUCP (Steve Nuchia)
Newsgroups: comp.arch,comp.unix.wizards,comp.os.misc
Subject: Re: Mach, the new standard?
Message-ID: <292@nuchat.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 20-Aug-87 02:01:56 EDT
Article-I.D.: nuchat.292
Posted: Thu Aug 20 02:01:56 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 23-Aug-87 10:43:08 EDT
References: <1665@ncr-sd.SanDiego.NCR.COM> <8381@utzoo.UUCP> <797@Pescadero.ARPA> <1257@spice.cs.cmu.edu>
Organization: Public Access - Houston, Tx
Lines: 19
Keywords: Mach
Summary: Sigh.  maybe mach won't save the world.
Xref: mnetor comp.arch:1864 comp.unix.wizards:3828 comp.os.misc:86

In article <1257@spice.cs.cmu.edu>, rfr@spice.cs.cmu.edu (Rick Rashid) writes:
> Proof of a 4.3 license is required before we can send a tape.  Please keep

Which in turn requires proof of an AT&T v7 liscense, right?  Will
we ever again have an operating system that doesn't represent a
royalty stream for ma bell?

I realise that Mach is a research tool and not CMU's gift to the
industry, but would it not have been possible to have avoided
stepping into the same pile of problems that Berkeley did?  Haven't
the liscensing problems with 4.x proven the wisdom of starting from
scratch?  From what I've seen of bell's code it is a net liability
anyway.

Seriously, if a consious choice was made I'd very much like to know
what benefits were seen to basing Mach on licensed code.

	Steve Nuchia
	{{soma,academ}!uhnix1,sun!housun}!nuchat!steve