Re: Algol 68 is not ALGOL 60
The problem Algol 68 had was that it required a multi-level grammar (something like three different grammars depending on the context of where each was being used). Not something easy to do.
730 posts • joined 17 Nov 2012
Part of the problem with hackers is that they would tend to dissasemble Windows binaries to find out how they work in the first place.
That causes problems with the need for a "clean room" reimplementation to avoid the "copyright infringement" claims that would block its use, and pretty much kill the project.
Linux will never be relicenced as the GPL does meet the desires of the majority of the developers.
In addition, a number of the developers have died - and you will not get their permission either.
That GPLv2 license prevents companies from misappropriation of the code. Which has happened with BSD and MIT licenses.
The end result is that you don't like Perens opinion.
So somebody sued him for expressing his opinion. The only result of that is a loss.
It also makes one think that opinion may in fact be true. Now GRSecurity may actually have a problem...
Bruce Perens doesn't have grounds for suing directly - unless he has some code in the kernel that he believes is being misappropriated.
I don't believe he does, it is just his opinion, and he can always give his opinion - Free speech and all.
" when IBM added code to AIX that made the code a part of System V and therefore TSG's property and so couldn't be contributed to Linux without TSG's permission."
Except that the code added to Linux didn't come from AIX.
It came from OS/2. JFS v1 was added to AIX; but JFS v2 had a different foundation. The only thing that was the same was the three letters "JFS"
So the claim still fails.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020