Computer Old Farts Forum
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <>
To: Clem Cole <>
Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers <>,
	The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <>
Subject: Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:40:53 -0400	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <>

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:01:58AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> By formal definition, the tarball and the rest of UNIX from Research is and
> always has been, '*Open Source*' in the sources were available.  *But they
> were licensed*.  This was fairly typical of much early software BTW.  The
> binary nature only came about with the minicomputers.

It may have been "Open Source" by your definition, but there is a very
specific definition of "Open Source(tm)" and it has always been, from
the beginning, defined to mean code licensed under terms which meet
the Open Source Definition[1] (OSD).  The AT&T license, for better or
for worse does not mean the terms of the OSD.


> The sources in the tarball were not '*Free and Open Source*' -- which
> becomes the crux of the issue.  [Sadly the OSS folks have confused this
> over the years and that important detail is lost].

Hardly.  "Free and Open Source" (FOSS) is a term which developed
*after* the the term "Open Source" was coined and trademarked.  That
term was not created by the "OSS folks", but by people who were trying
the solve a political problem.  The GPL meets the definition of the
Open Source Definition, so GPL-licensed software is "Open Source(tm)".
But Stallman objected to that usage, preferring his terminology "Free
Software" on the grounds that it came first.  So FOSS was a compromise
to keep the FSF partisan happy.

But to take this back to TUHS, sorry, no code which falls under AT&T
License can be called "Open Source(tm)".  If AT&T were still trying to
sell Unix under its original terms including the AT&T Unpublished
Trade Secret "all your student's minds belong to us" license, and
tried to claim that Unix was "Open Source", the Open Source Initiative
could sue AT&T for trademark infringement.

If you must, you could try to claim that AT&T was "Source Available"
--- which is a terminology I've seen some used.  But I think your
assumptions of how easily the AT&T License could be obtained, and how
"anyone who wanted it could get it" may be looking at the past with
rose-colored classes.


					- Ted
COFF mailing list

  reply	other threads:[~2021-07-14 17:49 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
     [not found] <>
     [not found] ` <213a4c11-3ab2-4b4a-8d6b-b52105a19711@localhost>
     [not found]   ` <>
2021-07-14 15:01     ` Clem Cole
2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o [this message]
2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
2021-07-14 18:28         ` Clem Cole
2021-07-14 20:03         ` John Cowan
     [not found] <>
     [not found] ` <>
2021-07-15  6:33   ` Michael Kjörling
2021-07-15 20:44     ` Derek Fawcus
2021-07-15 15:07   ` Clem Cole
2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-16  2:14           ` George Michaelson
2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-18  3:29               ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-19 13:41                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-19 14:50                       ` Clem Cole
2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
2021-07-19 20:21                             ` Clem Cole
2021-07-20  1:05                             ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
2021-07-20  0:55                             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-18  6:44                   ` Andy Kosela
2021-07-16 16:11         ` Jonathan Corbet
2021-07-15 23:02       ` joe mcguckin

Reply instructions:

You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:

* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
  and reply-to-all from there: mbox

  Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:

* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
  switches of git-send-email(1):

  git send-email \ \ \ \ \ \
    --subject='Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released' \

* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
  via mailto: links, try the mailto: link

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).