Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!swrinde!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk
From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
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 BSDIs horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <9208031228.34@rmkhome.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 92 17:28:33 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.152007.1126@news2.cis.umn.edu> <1992Jul30.174414.28488@kas.helios.mn.org> <1992Aug1.114436.8733@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Lines: 59
In article <1992Aug1.114436.8733@klaava.Helsinki.FI> torvalds@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds) writes:
>In article <1992Jul30.174414.28488@kas.helios.mn.org> rhealey@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey) writes:
>>In article <1992Jul21.152007.1126@news2.cis.umn.edu> rodeen@buddha.ncc.umn.edu (Rick Odeen) writes:
>>=I don't think this is a valid claim, Linus Torvalds developed the Linux
>>=system in less than one year from scratch.
>>=
>> Where did Linus get 99% of his MODELS for Linux? Ans: USL and BSD
>> UNIX. "We stand on the shoulders of giants..."
>
>Indeed - the /concepts/ of linux are naturally based on things that have
>been available in USL and BSD code. That doesn't mean that there is any
>risk of linux being sued by AT&T - they are all properly documented
>features, and thus AT&T cannot claim any infringement due to things like
>uid/setgid etc general unix interfaces.
>
>The problem with BSDI and 386BSD is that they have a bit more to prove
>than linux: BSD has been developed with free access to AT&T code (and
>nobody tries to argue otherwise), and there has been a flow of
>information both ways (arguably the flow has been bigger in the BSD ->
>AT&T direction, but that isn't the point). Linux, on the other hand,
>has been coded without /any/ AT&T code - not even as a starting point.
>I simply don't have access to any AT&T code even if I wanted to use it,
>which I don't.
>
>So if AT&T claims that BSDI (or 386BSD) couldn't have been developed in
>such a short time without AT&T sources, linux is indeed an argument
>against that claim. If one person can write a perfectly functional
>system in one year on his home machine (and some people that have tried
>both and don't need networking even /prefer/ linux to 386bsd), then a
>couple of knowledgeable people shouldn't have any problem to remove all
>the AT&T code.
>
>Note that linux isn't the only system that can claim being free from
>AT&T code: coherent, minix, etc have all been commercial for a long
>time, and USL hasn't tried to sue them. But linux is special in that
>it's been developed in a very short time, and thus can be used as a
>counter-argument to the USL claim that the BSDI developement would have
>been impossible without AT&T code.
Two things:
1. Mark Williams Company, developers of Coherent, have had their brush
with AT&T. Back in 1981, when Coherent was first developed, Dennis
Ritchie came and perused their code for AT&T proprietary information.
Although he proclaimed the code AT&T free, AT&T had already told a
large Mark Williams customer that they were stealing AT&T code.
Mark Williams lost that account due to this misinformation.
2. Although you developed Linux from scratch, implementing the features
that you wanted as you went, there are now people borrowing code from
NET2 and merging it into Linux. Or so it seems from reading the Linux
newsgroup. And if this case develops into a huge witch hunt, you can
bet that USL will have their eyes on GNU, which is where the large bulk
of Linux utilities came from.
--
Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP