Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: How different should my Minix be ...
References: <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000307094606.28290A-100000@hotrox.geology.yale.edu>
Organization: Rochester Institute of Technology, Rochester, NY
From: aje9383@osfmail.isc.rit.edu (Andrew Erickson)
NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: grace.isc.rit.edu
Message-ID: <38c54897@news.isc.rit.edu>
Date: 7 Mar 2000 13:21:11 -0500
X-Trace: 7 Mar 2000 13:21:11 -0500, grace.isc.rit.edu
Lines: 42
XPident: aje9383
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.21.4.100
XPident: Unknown
Path: news.adfa.oz.au!clarion.carno.net.au!news0.optus.net.au!news1.optus.net.au!optus!news.ecn.ou.edu!newsfeed.berkeley.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!bloom-beacon.mit.edu!news.kodak.com!news-nysernet-16.sprintlink.net!news.sprintlink.net!news.isc.rit.edu!aje9383
Xref: news.adfa.oz.au comp.os.minix:34818

In article <Pine.OSF.3.96.1000307094606.28290A-100000@hotrox.geology.yale.edu>,
Mihali Felipe  <mihali@hotrox.geology.yale.edu> wrote:
>
>just some hypothetical (and rather vague) questions: how different should
>my minix be for it to not be covered by the PH copyright? 

As far as copyrights are concerned, the qustion is one of origins; it's
not a question of how different vs. how similar they are.  As long as a
piece of code comes from Minix (albeit with modifications), it is, with
the current laws, a derivative work and covered by the copyright.  Some
parts (namely, those which are new) are not themselves covered, but the
system as a whole is covered, even with these new parts.

For it to be completely free of the Prentice-Hall copyright, it must be
a completely new project.  (Of course, the utilities, etc. which others
have contributed and liscensed to Prentice-Hall are coverd by their own
creators and licences.)

>and: is minix-vmd not under the PH copyright?

Presumably, yes.

>is there a minix-like OS that's truly open source? (no, i'm not talking
>about linux.) 

I don't believe so, if you don't consider Minix open source; but I tend
to think that Minix *is* open source.  Anyone can get, read, and modify
the source, and (I think) redistribute it non-commercially.  The ideals
are perhaps different from the GPL, but the result is similar--except a
company would perhaps have an easier time getting permission to produce
a closed product based on Minix, as Prentice-Hall seems more reasonable
about that sort of thing than, say, the FSF.  I suspect Prentice-Hall's
primary concerns are that (a) they not be sued for bugs and (b) that no
other textbook publisher can steal Minix and write a competing text.

The only operating systems that I know of which may be within a stone's
throw of Minix (in terms of complexity, capabilities, design, etc.) are
all aimed at embedded systems and are quite costly.  

-- 
Andrew Erickson
NOT speaking for Prentice-Hall, IANAL, etc.
