Re: Some iPhone buyers were screwed double...

In article <O92dnWQN4Io0Qn3bnZ2dnUVZ_uCinZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-784A90.21350706092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <ysCdnV546qcUUn3bnZ2dnUVZ_s6mnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

What about the buyers of the $500 4 GB iPhone? Not only did the 8 GB
model drop to $100 less than what they paid, they didn't even get a lousy
store credit from Apple.

Will you never check your facts?

Of course I check my facts, that's what seperates me from you, that and your
low level of reading comprehension.

So you check the facts and then ignore them...


"Therefore, we have decided to offer every iPhone customer who purchased
an iPhone from either Apple or AT&T, and who is not receiving a rebate
or any other consideration, a $100 store credit towards the purchase of
any product at an Apple Retail Store or the Apple Online Store. Details
are still being worked out and will be posted on Apple's website next
week. Stay tuned."

<http://www.apple.com/hotnews/openiphoneletter/>

Read that, Edwin: "every iPhone customer".

Steve Jobs only mentions the $599 model in that article. No mention of the
$499 model at all.

He just explicitly says "every iPhone customer"...

LOL


"SAN JOSE, Calif. (Sept. 6) - Apple Inc. CEO Steve Jobs apologized and
offered $100 credits Thursday to customers who shelled out $599 for the most
advanced model of the iPhone, only to have the company unexpectedly slash
the price $200 in a push to boost holiday sales."

http://money.aol.com/news/articles/_a/jobs-apologizes-gives-100-iphone-credit/
20070905095809990001

Will you never check your facts?

I did. I went right to the source (which for reasons which may become
clear later is a particularly good way to put it right at this moment.
:-) )


--
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
-- Alan "Wrong Again" Baker

My first claim. "SunOS was a purchase OS".


Me: "How much do you say Sun paid to buy their OS, and who did they pay it
to? "

Alan Baker: "Sun paid a license fee to the University of California. That
fee was small, but it was for the license. "

Alan Baker revises his claim of where Sun licensed its OS:

""the first freely-redistributable code from Berkeley.", "released in
June 1989".
Every version of BSD prior to that required an AT&T license.
Period. "

Which was also true.


"As people may recall from the original settlement of the BSD lawsuit,
three files had to be removed from BSD that represented things in SysV
source. What is often forgotten, though, is that AT&T itself was in a
far greater bind because while there was some SysV code in BSD, there
was a LOT of "borrowed" and misattributed BSD code found to be in AT&T
SysV. BSD permits this, but the license at the time required the
advertising clause, and AT&T fraudulently ignored this. The actual
settlement said that AT&T would no longer sue the BSD people, and that
the University of California would also agree to hold AT&T harmless
for misappropriating BSD code. Hence, much of the code that SCO owns
is actually misattributed BSD code for which UC permitted AT&T (and
it's decendents) to use."

http://radio.weblogs.com/0120124/2003/05/23.html

Actually, it was *six* files and they were removed from a version of BSD
long after the one that Sun got in 1982.


"The Berkeley copyright poses no restrictions on private or commercial
use of the software and imposes only simple and uniform requirements
for maintaining copyright notices in redistributed versions and
crediting the originator of the material only in advertising."


http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html

Alas, it wasn't only software that belong to the University that was in
BSD until 1991.



"Berkeley Unix: A version of AT&T Unix written by Berkeley students
and researchers, primarily Bill Joy. Considered by many to be the
first successful open source software development project. Also
referred to as BSD, or Berkeley Software Distribution. The ancestor of
386BSD, NetBSD, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and BSD/OS."


http://www.salon.com/tech/fsp/glossary/index.html

A gross over-simplification.



The licenses have few restrictions compared to other free software
licenses such as the GNU GPL or even the default restrictions provided
by copyright, putting it relatively closer to the public domain. The
BSD licenses have been referred to as copycenter, as a comparison to
standard copyright and copyleft free software: "Take it down to the
copy center and make as many copies as you want."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses

And it changes nothing.



"Other systems have historically been derived from BSD or included BSD
features, including several of the later Bell Laboratories Research
UNIX editions themselves. In 1982, Bill Joy, one of BSD's earliest
system architects, formed Sun Microsystems with three other
individuals. He took 4.1BSD along with him, and Sun/OS was developed
to support Sun's line of microcomputers. Carnegie Mellon based their
MACH system upon 4.2BSD (an act later reciprocated when Berkeley based
some of 4.3BSD-Reno upon MACH 2.5). MACH 2.5 also formed the basis for
NeXT Step and Digital's OSF/1 and DEC UNIX, and elements of MACH exist
in the current BSD incarnations (although FreeBSD has kept MACH's
virtual memory system, NetBSD and OpenBSD have replaced it with
Charles D. Cranor's UVM implementation)."


http://www.tribug.org/bsd.html

From the same source:

".4BSD Lite ("BSD Goes Open-Source")
4.4BSD was released in June of 1993, and included support for the Intel
i386 architecture as well as a new Mach-based virtual memory subsystem.
It was intended to be released as two versions: an encumbered version
which included Bell Labs source and required a UNIX software license to
obtain, and an unencumbered version called 4.4BSD Lite which would
contain no AT&T code."

IOW, even 4.4BSD had AT&T code -- at least the complete version did.

(BTW, that's where the six files thing comes in).





Are you ready to finally admit you're wrong?

Are you? You snipped out my reference to the Net-2 release, so first
I'll reinsert it:

"We are happy to announce the availability of the second release of the
BSD networking software. The distribution includes approximately 75% of
the utilities distributed as part of 4.3BSD-Reno and the C library (along
with manual pages and some related documentation), and much of the
kernel.
We wish to *strongly* emphasize, however, that significant portions of
the kernel are missing and that no binary support is supplied for any
architecture. Please note also that this software has only been tested
for compilation and operation on 4.3BSD-Reno."

[Because the parts that were missing were AT&T code.]

"This software suite is Copyright (C) 1991 The Regents of the University
of California and may be freely redistributed without further charge. No
previous license, either from AT&T or Berkeley is required."

[If BSD never required an AT&T license, why would they be saying that?
And just *who* is saying it, anyway?]

"Mike Karels
Kirk McKusick
Keith Bostic
Keith Sklower
Marc Teitelbaum"

[Why, among others, the very guy you won't listen to when he says that
BSD required an AT&T license prior to this point!]

<http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/NetBSD/misc/release/BSD/BSD-Net2>


So maybe if you didn't get it from that, you'll like this better:

"The license to 4.3BSD-Reno is simply an Addendum to the
4.3BSD License. Sites without a 4.3BSD license may obtain both
4.3BSD and 4.3BSD-Reno simultaneously, but must sign a 4.3BSD
license as well as the Addendum. Contact the distribution office
for 4.3BSD licensing information. 4.3BSD is available only to
sites with UNIX/32V, System III, or System V source licenses
with AT&T. We are actively working to decrease the amount of
AT&T code in the system. We expect that we will provide a subset
of 4.4BSD without the AT&T code to sites without requiring an
AT&T license. However, we are not prepared to make that determi-
nation for this release, so we are providing only tapes with the
complete system at this time."

<http://www.gtlib.gatech.edu/pub/NetBSD/misc/release/BSD/BSD-Net1>

So the complete system of BSD 4.3 required an AT&T license, wouldn't you
agree?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Edwins prediction from one year ago.
    ... the idea the Mayor said Apple is going out of business. ... I've now shown that AT&T charged hefty license fees to use the AT&T code ... And Bill Joy never charge himself a licensing fee, ... BSD didn't belong to Bill Joy. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Some iPhone buyers were screwed double...
    ... Will you never check your facts? ... Sun purchased and OS and then developed it. ... "Sun paid a license fee to the University of California. ... Every version of BSD prior to that required an AT&T license. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Some iPhone buyers were screwed double...
    ... store credit from Apple. ... "Sun paid a license fee to the University of California. ... Every version of BSD prior to that required an AT&T license. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: Some iPhone buyers were screwed double...
    ... store credit from Apple. ... Sun purchased and OS and then developed it. ... "Sun paid a license fee to the University of California. ... Every version of BSD prior to that required an AT&T license. ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)
  • Re: When will he admit he is wrong?
    ... California (who owned BSD, not Bill Joy), but they also needed one from ... BSD contained AT&T code and required a license from AT&T as ... "The BSD tapes contained AT&T source code and thus required a UNIX ... "The Berkeley copyright poses no restrictions on private or commercial ...
    (comp.sys.mac.advocacy)