*BSD News Article 3177


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.