From: "Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu>
To: Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com>
Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers <coff@tuhs.org>,
The Eunuchs Hysterical Society <tuhs@tuhs.org>
Subject: Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 13:40:53 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <YO8hpZ4VYln+QxNb@mit.edu> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAC20D2NDPLZQ25GfYq7Yi1XQj9BEJJY0gLQB3nb5Z2bM66wM8A@mail.gmail.com>
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.
[1] https://opensource.org/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sell Unix under its original terms including the AT&T Unpublished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.
Cheers,
- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-14 17:49 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 28+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
[not found] <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2107140824460.15723@aneurin.horsfall.org>
[not found] ` <213a4c11-3ab2-4b4a-8d6b-b52105a19711@localhost>
[not found] ` <CAE49LGn-gY9eikkwUgS+i3p=ZQV+gk_3BJ5V4_6B4HPbdyRuZw@mail.gmail.com>
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] <7wtukxtgag.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
[not found] ` <CAKH6PiVCjo3YnTZUVYOCDeffQ6POVwGAQA1QMR9UinkfGn+AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
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:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=YO8hpZ4VYln+QxNb@mit.edu \
--to=tytso@mit.edu \
--cc=clemc@ccc.com \
--cc=coff@tuhs.org \
--cc=tuhs@tuhs.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
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).