Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!samsung!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!crdgw1!newsun!gateway.novell.com!terry From: terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.170508.14978@gateway.novell.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 17:05:08 GMT References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Sender: news@gateway.novell.com (NetNews) Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT Lines: 51 Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com In article <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: >>Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. > >Not really. The Original UNIX was a "real world" replacement for Multics: >it lacked a lot of the features, but did pick up some of the basic ideas >(such as a shell-as-a-normal-program). > >>It is blatantly derived from Multics. > >It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there >was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the >other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with >this... :) Well, at least it was intended as a loader for several Multics games on the PDP. This is the anecdotal reason for it's initial developement. >In any event, the USL suit is either claiming outright infringement (i.e., >there is USL code in Net/2 and/or BSDI's code), or a form of infringement I >can understand, if not agree with. Namely, that the Net/2 code was written >to replace USL code, piece by piece, fragment by fragment, by people who >knew the USL code, and, therefore, the code is based upon USL code. Or a >combination of both, of course. > >This doesn't mean I agree with the latter concept. I don't really have an >opinion about it just yet -- but I can appreciate USL's point of view. I don't agree with the concept, but, unlike you, I do not appreciate USL's point of view. This would mean that a manufacturer of "jump-suits" should be able to sue Sears for trying to replace their product a piece at a time because Sears sells flannel shirts and Levi's. It would mean that GM should be able to sue auto parts stores that attempt to replace GM cars one piece at a time. It would mean that Democrats should be able to sue Bush for trying to replace their congress one piece at a time (and vice versa, for the Democrats trying to replace the Republican president one piece at a time. The just plain base idiocy of the "piecemeal replacement" argument ticks me off. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers.