Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!network.ucsd.edu!usc!wupost!gumby!destroyer!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD Message-ID: <7009@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 24 Jul 92 18:44:35 GMT References: <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <mcuddy.711795634@fensende> <1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 39 In article <1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com> terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes: >*** prediction alert *** prediction alert *** prediction alert *** > >I think that AT&T will win; not on the merits of reality, but on the merits >of their arguments. It will be difficult, without educating the judge to >the point of a CS degree, to draw the distinctions necessary to prove >non-infringement by BSDI. It certainly *looks* like BSDI is infringing >to a layman, and that's what the judge will be. I am not convinced of this. A long time ago, UCB developed an OS based on a system from AT&T. That system lacked almost every interesting thing now in BSD, including virtual memory. Since then, many man years of effort have gone into developing the system at UCB. Since all of the improvements are new, they were not based on the AT&T code. Finally, the last traces of AT&T code were removed. (Presumably, UCB and co can produce a list of what these last traces were, to show their insignificance.) Why would this look like infringment? However, we cannot be sure the courts will make a rational decision. One thing that worries me is the claim of "unfair competition", which seems to be based in part on the idea that BSDI was able to develop a system quickly while AT&T has taken many man years on their alternative. Now, this is a bogus comparison, because it leaves out all the man years of work at UCB, but suppose the argument carries the day nonetheless. The result may be this: anyone who takes public domain code and produces a commercial system can be sued for unfair competition by anyone who started from scratch. Indeed, people who distribute free systems might be sued. So much for ___ (fill in favorite source of free software) ___. (NB -- my statements about AT&T's case are based entriely on what I've read in this newsgroup. I could easily be wrong.) -- jd