Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!sdd.hp.com!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!ucbvax!virtualnews.nyu.edu!brnstnd From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Message-ID: <27648.Aug402.25.4792@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: 4 Aug 92 02:25:47 GMT References: <1992Aug3.103210.4792@ohm.york.ac.uk> <BZS.92Aug3155429@ussr.std.com> <l7rhg4INNlsn@neuro.usc.edu> Organization: IR Lines: 29 In article <l7rhg4INNlsn@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes: > Does the Berne convention protect claimed copyright on unpublished works > which are simultaneously claimed to be secret, proprietary, confidential, > and not available to anyone not holding a source code license. Yes. Look, folks, the current suit seems entirely straightforward. AT&T's claims (aside from the trademark stuff) come down to (1) CSRG and BSDI copied AT&T code; (2) CSRG failed to live up to its contract with AT&T; (3) CSRG stole AT&T trade secrets. If (1) is true, then AT&T will be able to prove it, and the Regents and BSDI will lose. If (1) is false, then the Berkeley lawyers won't be so stupid as to let AT&T get away with anything. (2) seems to depend on (1). And (3) will undoubtedly not be held up, given the massive volume of published literature on UNIX and operating systems in general, as well as the rather strict requirements on confidentiality agreements. Chances are that right now the USL lawyers (Crummy et al.) don't have the slightest idea whether anything in NET/2 contains code copied from AT&T. In fact, chances are that nobody in AT&T has the slightest idea. I tend to believe that if Keith Bostic checked every single file then there's probably no AT&T-derived code in NET/1 or NET/2, but I don't have any firsthand evidence. Why don't we just wait and see what evidence USL drags up, if any, of the copying? This suit has barely gotten off the ground. ---Dan