Am Mittwoch den, 24. April 2002, um 09:40, schrieb Adam Atlas: It seems that Darwin is one of the few (the only?) BSD-derived operating system that does not use the BSD License. I downloaded the 4.4BSD-Lite sources (Darwin is based on 4.4BSD-Lite, right?) and it comes with a copy of the BSD License. And the BSD License says that any product derived from it, in source or binary form, must include that license. How did Apple get around that? BSD license is included in all files derived from BSD in Darwin. However, there are other files in Darwin which Apple has produced and do not require any BSD license. I though 4.4BSD-Lite was in the public domain, but I guess I'm wrong. BSD is not 'in the public domain'. The BSD license says, briefly, that the use is unrestricted, provided a notice the product is derived in part from BSD is provided. The unrestricted part is that one need not supply sources, either original BSD source, or derived works to any third party. The GPL, also not 'in the Public Domain', requires that sources be passed on to third parties. However, this need not be 'without compensation', ie one can charge some fee for providing the source, both original or derived sources. The Apple license requires, among other things, that if you produce something derived from Darwin sources, Apple can require that the sources be fed back into Darwin. (Whether Apple wants it is a different story...) Perhaps others know, but I can't think of any court case involving copyright infringement, where the Free Software Foundation has sued an entity for improper handling of the GPL'd material. _______________________________________________ darwin-kernel mailing list | darwin-kernel@lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Archives: http://www.lists.apple.com/mailman/listinfo/darwin-kernel Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.