*BSD News Article 2146


Return to BSD News archive

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!kithrup!sef
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:05:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM>
References: <83873@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com> <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu>
Lines: 59

In article <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes:
>i think they are suing over the use of the U-word.....

I don't think so... BSDi went to great efforts to remove the word "UNIX" (a
registered trademark of USL) from their system.

There are a bunch of papers on ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/usl.  Ok, not a
bunch, just five, that seem to have a bunch of information in them (I'm
still looking over them now).

One of the complaints was about the 1-800-ITS-UNIX (I didn't know ITS was
unix compatible... hmm), which is no longer a valid phone number, seeming,
to me at least, that that part of the complaint is either resolved or no
longer relevant.

One of the interesting paragraphs is:

14. Substantial portions of BSDI's BSD/386 operating system are copied from,
based upon, or otherwise derived from, USL's proprietary software products.
Plantiff reserves the right to seek an ammendment of this Complaint to add
claims for relief with respect to violation by BSDI of USL's proprietary
rights upon the development of additional facts.

and

24. As shown in Exhibit B, BSDI's promotional materials contain 
the following representations concerning its "BSD/386" system: 

	BSD/386 is a "Berkeley UNIX" compatible operating system for 
	the 386 and 486 PC architectures. It is based on the most 
	recent release from the Computer Systems Research Group of 
	the University of California, Berkeley - the Networking Release 
	2. The NET2 tape contained no AT&T licensed code, but was not 
	a complete system. BSDI has completed the system and added 
	additional drivers. The resulting system does not require a 
	license from AT&T, and so is available in source form at a 
	fraction of AT&T's price. 

25. This statement is materially false and misleading in that, 
among other things, the "Networking Release 2" referred to therein 
contains software code that was copied from, based upon, or derived 
from, code licensed to the Regents by AT&T, such that any operating 
system derived from "Networking Release 2" requires a license from 
AT&T or its successor, USL. 


In other words (potentially *wrong* words, mind you, since I'm not a
lawyer), *anything* based on the Net/2 tape, according to USL, requires an
AT&T/USL license!! (EEEEP!)

I'm not done reading files yet, but thought I'd mention the above stuff now.

Comments, anyone?

-- 
Sean Eric Fagan  | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah
sef@kithrup.COM  |  complex.  But I forgive him."
-----------------+              -- Jim Carrey
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.