OS X: BSD or Proprietary? (was Re: Again: list of advantages of the xGPL)
Matt Seitz <[email protected]> Fri, 21 Jun 2002 11:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.emulators.wine.license |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
"Roland" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > Furthermore, when you consider OSX, this is an Apple > specific OS, it is not freely available. It's a proprietary extension to BSD. Darwin, the OS X kernel, is open source and is available at no cost under the Apple Public Source License. It has been ported to the i386 archtecture. Aqua, the UI, and Carbon, the MacOS compatability library, are proprietary. But calling them "extensions" to BSD seems like calling KDE and Wine "extensions" to Linux. I'd think it's more accurate to call OS X a BSD OS distribution that includes proprietary applications rather than a proprietary extension of BSD. ===== Sincerely, Matt Seitz __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com