From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wkt@tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 08:28:39 +1000
Subject: [Unix-jun72] Early UNIX: papers & Usenix
In-Reply-To: <20090410162319.GB12970@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20090409072237.GA65426@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20090409132154.GC4909@mercury.ccil.org>
	<20090409.084721.954465063.imp@bsdimp.com>
	<20090410074428.GA95251@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20090410162319.GB12970@mercury.ccil.org>
Message-ID: <20090410222839.GA19150@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Fri, Apr 10, 2009 at 12:23:19PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
> Do the Net-2-derived BSDs (including Darwin) really count as Unix-derived?
> I thought they were fairly free of AT&T code now, other than headers and
> the like.  Conceptually, of course, they are Unix-derived, but then so
> is Linux.

I count "derived" as meaning that I can trace a continuous code lineage from one
to the other. So V7 -> 32V -> 3BSD -> 4.xBSD -> 4.4BSD-Lite -> Open Src BSDs.

But Linux isn't derived, in this sense.
 
> It would be snazzy to restore the classical typography of Unix as
> U<small>NIX</small> in your paper.

I'm following the official trademark. I must admit that I dithered in each
direction, but then decided to stick to the official, blessed version of
the typography.

Glad you guys liked the paper.
	Warren