John Bailo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
