Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA2299 ; Mon, 01 Mar 93 10:52:56 EST
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!geraldo.cc.utexas.edu!portal.austin.ibm.com!awdprime.austin.ibm.com!guyd
From: guyd@austin.ibm.com (Guy Dawson)
Subject: Re: 386BSD vs BSDI
Originator: guyd@pal500.austin.ibm.com
Sender: news@austin.ibm.com (News id)
Message-ID: <C32Ezz.Dsr@austin.ibm.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Feb 1993 16:55:11 GMT
References: <HALEY.93Feb23030107@husc11.harvard.edu> <1mdar0INNn5n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> <6407@krafla.rhi.hi.is> <1993Feb25.221456.14935@advtech.uswest.com>
Organization: IBM Austin
Lines: 49
In article <1993Feb25.221456.14935@advtech.uswest.com>, huntting@advtech.uswest.com (Brad Huntting) writes:
> In article <HALEY.93Feb23030107@husc11.harvard.edu> haley@husc11.harvard.edu (Elizabeth Haley) writes:
> >The 1-800-ITS-UNIX thing? What about, for instance, the mug in my
> >office from another company with the phone number 1-800-SAY-UNIX?
> >That company, needless to say, is not being litigated.
>
> My understanding is that this issue was settled very early on and is no
> longer contested. BSDI agreed not to use (or advertise?) phone numbers
> with the digits 8649 in them, and USL agreed.
>
> Having succeeded in forcing BSDI to call all it's first production
> release "gamma", USL is trying to stall the case until BSDI is
> bankrupted.
>
> They of course claim to have evidence that NET2 contains USL code, but
> refuse to produce it or point out where it is.
>
This SUCKS big time...
> They also say that NET2 was produced by people who themselfs were
> "tainted" by prolonged exposure to USL propriatary code. This is
> taintamount to saying that these people (including many of the best
> minds in the computer industry) are themselfs "USL propriatary", and
> any code they produce which is remotely like anything found in unix(*)
> belongs to USL.
>
>
Didn't someone post stating that some US states have 'right to work' laws
that state that if you main skills are x then you can do x for any
employer. This means that if it only thing you are good at is writing
Unix system then a previous employer cannot prevent you from writing
Unix systems for another employer? Or am I just worng?
> brad
>
Guy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Guy Dawson - Hoskyns Group Plc.
guyd@hoskyns.co.uk Tel Hoskyns UK - 71 251 2128
guyd@austin.ibm.com Tel IBM Austin USA - 512 838 3377
"Knolege is powef, Speling is unimportnt" - Pete W. De Bonte