Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site bnl44.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm
From: jpm@bnl44.UUCP (John McNamee)
Newsgroups: net.micro.amiga,net.micro.6809,net.micro.68k
Subject: Re: Info on OS9 Operating System
Message-ID: <1007@bnl44.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Sep-85 06:44:05 EDT
Article-I.D.: bnl44.1007
Posted: Wed Sep 25 06:44:05 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 27-Sep-85 07:30:21 EDT
References: <347@wlbr.UUCP> <2193@ukma.UUCP>
Lines: 23
Xref: linus net.micro.amiga:4077 net.micro.6809:480 net.micro.68k:1081

>OS9 has a real problem, and it's not in the software, but with the management.
>Microware will not release source code to OS9, not even to developers!  I find
>this apalling, and it is probably one of the main reasons that OS9 is not more
>popular than it is.  They have really stuck it to themselves there, because
>AT&T is starting to push SysV for the 68000, for which you can get source code.

According to the licensing information I got from MicroWare about 6 months
ago, full source code is provided to OEMs who purchase a high volume
distribution license. You must also realize that OS9 source code isn't
as necessary as Unix source code. It is possible to bring up OS9 on a
totally new system without sources. It is also possible to extend the
kernel without source code (i.e. you should be able to do NFS for OS9
without kernal sources). This is not to say that sources aren't a good
thing to have (I would sure want them), but that they aren't as essential
for OS9 as they are for Unix. But they are available, so this whole
discussion is moot.
-- 

			 John McNamee
		..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl44!jpm
			jpm@BNL44.ARPA

		  "MS-DOS is a communist plot"