(null) <***@sonic.net> wrote:
| David Kaye <***@yahoo.com> wrote:
| >"(null)" <***@sonic.net> wrote
| >> OK, so I think we can agree that the claim by OP's friend has *some* merit
| >> (very little, but non-zero nonetheless) depending on interpretation.
| >But isn't that like saying that Windows is Unix-based because both have
| >command line interfaces?
| No. If you examine the Microsoft Windows copyright it
| includes a BSD license disclosure indicating its Unix ties.
| These disclosures are evident in the headers for the Windows networking API
| as well as in the hexdumps of many of the networking binary executables.
Uh... Just because there is a *BSD* license *DOES NOT* mean
that there is any "Unix" code involved!! In particular, the
BSD networking code (kernel + user-mode) has *NO* connection
with Unix per se, as evidenced by the fact that the BSD "Net-2"
release was recognized by all parties in the various lawsuits
back in the day as being uncontaminated by AT&T Unix source code.
*Lots* of people, not just Microsoft, used the BSD Net-2 networking
code in various operating systems and embedded systems, *precisely*
because it was both free and uncontaminated by AT&T Unix.
Rob Warnock <***@rpw3.org>
627 26th Avenue <http://rpw3.org/>
San Mateo, CA 94403