Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!uunet!pipex!unipalm!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7052@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 4 Aug 92 15:06:36 GMT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 24 In article <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis D Spinellis) writes: >In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >> It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >>issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >>whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >>of trying to hide something, even if they're not. >Trying to play the devil's advocate, I can see why BSDI could be afraid >of such a comparison. A third party examining the whole body of the >source code, would definitely find many similarities between the BSDI >and the AT&T version. > Either some code >was left there by mistake, or AT&T will claim that they copied something >more general, like the system structure (see above). If that's why they're suing, why can't they say "they copied the general structure" themselves? Why this 3rd party? It's beginning to look like USL may not have any solid evidence at all. Perhaps they expect that a 3rd party will find some similarities (how could they not, between similar operating systems?) and then plan to claim that their case is proved by whatever similarities are found.