Talk:386BSD

message: I think this page is a little inaccurate; my sources (which I'm too lazy to quote right now) seem to indicate that 386BSD was developed in parallel with BSD/386 (and even came a little bit after it, as it was developed by an ex- BSDi employee).  The common ancestor was the NET2 tape itself from Berkeley.
If anyone knows any better, I'd love to hear about it.
Jhf 02:58, 4 Mar 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: A series of edits were made to this article (and to the talk page) last year by an anonymous user which I suspect is either Bill or Lynne Jolitz (based on that user's contributions to other pages, including William Jolitz and Lynne Jolitz).
Some of these edits were perfectly fine, fleshing out the history of 386BSD, but there are some I find objectionable.  In particular, important factual information (such as the fact that NetBSD and FreeBSD both shipped complete releases before 386BSD) was removed, and the description of certain events (such as the cause of the falling-out that led to the creation of the NetBSD and FreeBSD projects) was changed to place the Jolitzes in a much more favorable light.  Needless to say, the previous version is much closer to how the NetBSD and FreeBSD communities perceived those events.
To me, this article now reads more like a press release than an encyclopedia article.  I have therefore marked it as POV.
DES 15:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmmm. I checked the history and, while there was some blatant pro-Jolitz POV when you made your comments, it seemed later settled to me. However, you're welcome to add information from the other side, so we can perhaps solve the dispute. --Cyclopia 12:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV 

message: :"All rights with respect to 386BSD and JOLIX are now held exclusively by William Jolitz and Lynne Jolitz."
I find that very hard to believe. Most of the OS should be copyright The Regents of the University of California, with probably pieces owned by others (wasn't there a lot of GNU code in 4.4BSD?), unless the Jolitzes decided to rewrite the whole thing. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:00, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ownership 

message: In section "Further reading", we have 2 DDJ articles dated Apr/1991 and no articles dated Dec/1991 and Jan/1992.  Is this an error?
--Black Walnut (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of DDJ articles 

message: The infobox says the license of 386BSD is a BSD licence.
I've been looking at the project's Github repository.
* Version 0.0: I couldn't find a global license file for this version, but init_main.c has a 4 clause BSD License crediting the Regents of the University of California.
* Version 0.1: has a 4 clause BSD License in the COPYRIGHT file  crediting William F. Jolitz, TeleMuse
* Versions 1.0 & 2.0: have a COPYRIGHT file consisting of the 4 clause license from 0.1 with 4 additional clauses forbidding commercial distribution, and non-commercial distribution of modified source or binaries.
The version 1.0/2.0 license is clearly derived from the 4 clause BSD license, but with the additions it appears to fail to meet the Open Source Initiative's The Open Source Definition, specifically sections 3. Derived Works, 6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor and 7. Distribution of License.
My gut feel was to update the infobox to say 0.0 + 0.1 are BSD Licensed and 1.0 + 2.0 are proprietary but then I decided I really don't know enough about licenses to accurately categorise the 1.0 + 2.0 license.
Help! Kiore (talk) 05:18, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  License BSD license?