Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!constellation!osuunx.ucc.okstate.edu!newsfeed.ksu.ksu.edu!moe.ksu.ksu.edu!news.mid.net!crcnis1.unl.edu!wupost!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!pipex!uknet!festival!edcogsci!richard From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Subject: Re: 4.4-lite? Message-ID: <CtHzo0.DpH@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh References: <30h9jl$fg4@pdq.coe.montana.edu> <MYCROFT.94Jul20171702@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <1994Jul23.135545.2277@cm.cf.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 25 Jul 1994 13:19:12 GMT Lines: 27 In article <1994Jul23.135545.2277@cm.cf.ac.uk> paul@isl-gate.elsy.cf.ac.uk (Paul) writes: >The simple fact of the matter is that Net/2 was declared tainted in >its entirety, You keep posting this stuff, and it's just false. Who declared it it tainted? Not the court: they didn't make a ruling, and in his refusal to grant an injunction against BSDI the judge made it clear that he saw very little merit in USL's case. Not UCB or BSDI: they haven't admitted anything. They merely made an (obviously tactically sensible) agreement not to distribute Net/2 code after some date. At least one former member of CSRG has publicly stated that he still doesn't believe that USL have any rights over Net/2. The only people (apart from you, apparently) who claim that Net/2 is tainted are USL, and they would, wouldn't they. >If I have misunderstood the ramifications of the BSD/USL settlement then I >will agree to posting a retraction Clearly you have misunderstood it. Your statement that "Net/2 was declared tainted" is just wrong, so please retract it. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, HCRC, Edinburgh University R.Tobin@ed.ac.uk Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.