Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Date: 6 Aug 92 01:04:08 GMT References: <KANDALL.92Aug5145515@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> <o772klk@twilight.wpd.sgi.com> Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Lines: 29 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... :) 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. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah sef@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him." -----------------+ -- Jim Carrey Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.