Re: Will The Hurd Trample The Penguin ?!?

[David Kastrup]

John Bailo <jabailo@texeme.com> writes:

> David Kastrup wrote:
>
>> A license is something that comes with every copy.  Whether or not the
>> copies the FSF distributes come under GPL does not influence the
>> license of other copies.
>
> According to the Mach license:
>
> http://www-2.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/project/mach/public/FAQ/license.info
>
> "   2. If  the  LICENSEE  develops  any  enhancements to the software which
>       materially improves its operation  and  if  those  enhancements  are
>       redistributed  to  others, LICENSEE agrees to make such enhancements
>       available to LICENSOR  without  charge  and  to  allow  LICENSOR  to
>       redistribute  such  modifications  and  derivative  works thereof to
>       others.   LICENSOR  agrees  to  withhold  source  redistribution  of
>       LICENSEE's  machine  dependent software enhancements for a period of
>       eighteen months at the written request of the LICENSEE."
>
>
> So, why isn't OSX code made freely available via the Mach license?

Because it is not an enhancement of Mach?  Mach is a _Microkernel_,
Darwin (which incidentally _is_ made freely available which would not
actually be required by either the Mach or BSD license) is basically
an application running on top of it.

Anyway, the original CMU license reads differently and can be found at
<URL:http://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/gnumach-doc/mach_13.html#SEC109>.
So it would appear that not all versions of Mach were licensed alike.

-- 
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum