Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:12490 comp.society.futures:1119
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!purdue!decwrl!labrea!rutgers!gatech!emory!dtscp1!scott
From: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.society.futures
Subject: Re: Future at Berzerkeley
Keywords: Leading Edge == Bottom Line
Message-ID: <601@dtscp1.UUCP>
Date: 28 Mar 89 18:01:15 GMT
References: <4572@pt.cs.cmu.edu> <13452@steinmetz.ge.com>
Reply-To: scott@dtscp1.UUCP (Scott Barman)
Organization: Digital Transmission Systems (a subsidiary of DCA), Duluth, GA
Lines: 22

In article <13452@steinmetz.ge.com> davidsen@crdos1.UUCP (bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <4572@pt.cs.cmu.edu> jps@cat.cmu.edu (James Salsman) writes:
>| BSD code is more accessable; if AT&T wants major innovations
>| under SysV, they are going to have to be more easy-going 
>| with the sources and software hooks.
>
>  Really? I thought you had to buy a SysV source license before you
>could get BSD source. Has that changed? Of course there are more
>*unlicensed* copies of BSD around, that I agree.

Speaking of licensing:

	When bsd and System V are merged, will the holders of 32V licenses
still be able to get source to newer bsd versions?  Or will everyone wishing
to get source have to go out and get a SV.4 licence?

	Also, in the recent wave of AT&T f***ing up licensing procedures (it
used to be soooo easy), are they planning any changes for SV.4?

-- 
scott barman
{gatech, emory}!dtscp1!scott