os/doc
3
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

articles/explaining-bsd:

Browse source 
- remove a broken link to an article in the Wall Street Journal [1]
- while here do not call March 2000 "recent"

This article needs more updating.

Submitted by:	Ruben Klink on freebsd-doc [1]
This commit is contained in:
Rene Ladan 2015-10-26 21:12:42 +00:00
parent 59682c2276
commit 33dbc4d2fe
Notes: svn2git 2020-12-08 03:00:23 +00:00 
svn path=/head/; revision=47674
1 changed files with 1 additions and 10 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

11
en_US.ISO8859-1/articles/explaining-bsd/article.xml
View file

@ -207,7 +207,7 @@
the vendor of BSD/386, alleging that the product contained
AT&T-copyrighted code. The case was settled out of court in
1994, but the spectre of the litigation continues to haunt people.
As recently as March 2000 an article published on the web claimed
In March 2000 an article published on the web claimed
that the court case had been <quote>recently settled</quote>.</para>
<para>One detail that the lawsuit did clarify is the naming: in the
@ -218,15 +218,6 @@
system</quote> and <quote>the 4.4BSD operating
system</quote>.</para>
</listitem>
<listitem>
<para>There is a perception that the BSD projects are fragmented and
belligerent. The
<link xlink:href="http://interactive.wsj.com/bin/login?Tag=/&amp;URI=/archive/retrieve.cgi%253Fid%253DSB952470579348918651.djm&amp;">Wall Street
Journal</link> spoke of <quote>balkanization</quote> of the
BSD projects. Like the law suit, this perception bases mainly
on ancient history.</para>
</listitem>
</orderedlist>
</sect1>