From: "Paul Ranson" 

"adam flinton"  wrote in message
news:3eef9ad9$1{at}w3.nls.net...
> So how come it doesn't thus own BSD? It's the same basic claim which is
> anything built on top of AST&T'es orig work (inc architecture) is now
> owned by SCO & that includes BSD.

Because BSD is different, new stuff from before commercial Unix, TCP code,
paid for by the US taxpayer etc etc.

Should be common knowledge.

> Why? It has nothing to do with GPL per se & everything to do with
> OSS'ing code in general. BSD licence is an OSS licence.

Linux includes code from IBM and others that came from commercial Unix and
has been 'GPL'd'. Has any BSD used this code?

On reflection I think it legally possible for BSD to include GPL'd code
because the current BSD licence is 'compatible', but I don't know if it
does.

Paul

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-4