Re: OT: Darwin
On Tue, 11 Sep 2001, Ethan Benson wrote:
> they did NOT use the bsd kernel. that is a myth propagated by
> slashdot mostly.
"The Darwin kernel is based on FreeBSD and Mach 3.0 technologies."
-- official Darwin website
More specifically, Wilfredo Sanchez refered to Darwin 1.0 as "the first
version based on the new kernel (based on Mach 3.0 and some of FreeBSD
3.2)." He ought to know, since he was the chief BSD guy at Apple at the
time, in addition to being a NetBSD and FreeBSD developer.
If you still don't believe, you can look at the source yourself by
downloading this tarball and looking in the xnu-4-2/bsd/kern/
http://publicsource.apple.com/projects/darwin/1.3/source/apsl/xnu-124-4.2.tar.gz
If you don't want to poke around yourself, I'll sum it up. Nearly every
file contains code originally from 4.4BSD, some of it via NeXT and the
rest via FreeBSD and NetBSD. This is the Darwin kernel. It is BSD.
> > And it's not stolen. The BSD license allows for what NeXT did.
>
> the BSD licence allows corporations to steal with impunity.
>
> its still stealing.
I don't think one can steal something that is given away freely.
And if Darwin is stealing, then why not Linux? A quick grep finds at
least nine files in the 2.4 kernel source with copyright claimed by the
Regents of the University of California.
Reply to: