Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!osu-cis!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ukma!husc6!bu-cs!madd
From: madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Open Software Foundation
Message-ID: <22988@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: 29 May 88 17:59:02 GMT
References: <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3166@pdn.UUCP>
Reply-To: madd@bu-it.bu.edu (Jim Frost)
Followup-To: comp.unix.wizards
Organization: Boston University Distributed Systems Group
Lines: 24

In article <3166@pdn.UUCP> reggie@pdn.UUCP (George W. Leach) writes:
|In article <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> wesommer@athena.mit.edu (William Sommerfeld) writes:
|>	    NEW FOUNDATION TO ADVANCE SOFTWARE STANDARDS,
|                              ^^^^^^^
|>	    DEVELOP AND PROVIDE OPEN SOFTWARE ENVIRONMENT
| 
|     More like they want to reimplement the wheel and call it something
|else because they don't want to follow AT&T and Sun's lead.

I was under the impression that they were going to be considerably
more open with licensing and source distribution.  I believe that the
original article said 'reasonable, stable licensing' -- neither of
which AT&T supplies.

If you don't agree, how much *does* it cost for an AT&T source
license?  And what are the terms?  And how has the licensing changed
even between releases of SysV?  I don't consider it reasonable, and
the new difficulties some educators are having getting licenses that
they've always had in the past does not promote the idea of stability.

One man's opinion.

jim frost
madd@bu-it.bu.edu