News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29-year-old BSD.

Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by cptnapalm on Monday August 17, 2020 @01:06PM (#24189197)
As 2.11BSD code is, I think, at least partially prior to the settlement with AT&T, does anyone know what, if any, files in it are still encumbered?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by LukeShu on Monday August 17, 2020 @01:25PM (#24189418)
The Version 6 (7?) UNIX code that BSD is based on was re-licensed to a 4-clause BSD license in 2002.

http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by scruffyherder on Tuesday August 18, 2020 @02:05AM (#24195747)
It’s too bad caldera didn’t have ownership to give it away, rather they had rights to sublicense it.

Should have bought a $100 ancient Unix license instead.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by cptnapalm on Monday August 17, 2020 @01:33PM (#24189504)
Did not know that. Thank you.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by fanf2 on Monday August 17, 2020 @01:22PM (#24189378)
2BSD is covered by the Ancient UNIX license though the status of the license is a bit murky https://virtuallyfun.com/wordpress/2018/11/26/why-bsd-os-is-...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:A 35-year-old bug in Patch found in efforts to restore 29... by bsdimp on Monday August 17, 2020 @04:55PM (#24191976)
The question too is whether UNIX is copyrighted due to the pre-berne convention distribution of the system w/o copyright notices... And there's also a question of latches as well should this ever be litigated (I suspect it won't, but I never anticipated the SCO suit, so there you go).
[ Parent | on HN ]