Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!husc6!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!mailrus!ames!pacbell!att-ih!ttrdc!levy
From: levy@ttrdc.UUCP (Daniel R. Levy)
Newsgroups: comp.os.vms
Subject: Re: Help us defend against VMS!
Message-ID: <2226@ttrdc.UUCP>
Date: 10 Mar 88 01:59:39 GMT
References: <2235@bsu-cs.UUCP> <892@cfa.cfa.harvard.EDU> <4236@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>
Organization: AT&T, Skokie, IL
Lines: 23

In article <4236@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu>, davidli@umn-cs.cs.umn.edu (Dave Meile) writes:
> I don't understand these OS wars here in comp.os.vms.  I mean, the two
> major operating systems are both, for the most part, proprietary.  If you
> don't believe this, try writing your own version of UNIX and marketing it
> without paying AT&T any money.  You'll quickly experience the how "non
> proprietary" it really is!

There are some UNIX-like operating systems out there which were written
without reference to so much as one line of AT&T code, and as such AT&T
has not to my knowledge raised any challenge thereto.  (MINIX is one such
OS.)  However, none of these systems may legally be called a UNIX operating
system; they are typically billed as "UNIX-like" or "UNIX-compatible."
I honestly don't know whether this is because of (strategic?) magnanimity
on the part of AT&T (as was the release for public use without royalty of
the "setuid bit" patent) or whether it is truly out of AT&T's legal reach.
(I am, you note, covering my behind.)  I also don't know whether implementors
of VMS-like environments (there are some out there) must license the right
from DEC.
-- 
|------------Dan Levy------------|  Path: ..!{akgua,homxb,ihnp4,ltuxa,mvuxa,
|         an Engihacker @        |  	<most AT&T machines>}!ttrdc!ttrda!levy
| AT&T Computer Systems Division |  Disclaimer?  Huh?  What disclaimer???
|--------Skokie, Illinois--------|