*BSD News Article 29603


Return to BSD News archive

Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!yeshua.marcam.com!charnel!charnel.net.csuchico.edu!nic-nac.CSU.net!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!noc.near.net!ipswitch!ddlgw!ddl
From: ddl@harvard.edu (Dan Lanciani)
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.questions
Subject: Re: *BSD ILLEGAL???
Message-ID: <305@ddlgw.UUCP>
Date: 22 Apr 94 17:58:54 GMT
References: <2ok76t$h81@Mercury.mcs.com> <hastyCoGwJt.LrL@netcom.com>
Organization: Internet
Lines: 28

In article <hastyCoGwJt.LrL@netcom.com>, hasty@netcom.com (Amancio Hasty Jr) writes:

| Interesting, I think that USL or UCB should make a public statement 
| about thi;specially, if net2 is still accesible on the net. 
| 
| It sounds to me like a scam -- if portions of the net2 are not 
| the property of UCB then why are they still available. Is not
| like they have to dig through tons of code to extract 
| the files belonging to Novell... I find this all very odd.

Well, I think I'm beginning to understand this.  But I hope I'm
wrong.  It seems that the list of files that are further
restricted is not available to the public, i.e., those who
have the info are under non-disclosure.  Removing those files
from the ftp sites would implicitly provide the list to anyone
who took the time to diff the trees.  Without the list, it
appears that anybody currently using NET2 must either switch
wholesale to 4.4lite or make private arrangements with USL
and/or Berkeley to find out more details.  The former could
be problematical depending on how much effort someone had
invested in the NET2 tree and the extent to which such previous
work was considered contaminated.  There seems to be no obvious
way, given only public information, to take a NET2-derived
product and ``clean'' it by backtracking the contested files
(since we don't know the contested files).

				Dan Lanciani
				ddl@harvard.*