*BSD News Article 33459


Return to BSD News archive

Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:14430 comp.os.386bsd.misc:2893
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!qualcomm.com!apprentice!ianm
From: ianm@apprentice.qualcomm.com (Ian McCloghrie)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc
Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD
Date: 29 Jul 94 18:00:20 GMT
Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA
Lines: 26
Message-ID: <ianm.775504820@apprentice>
References: <310j8t$gl4@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> <Ctp913.6Cn@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>
NNTP-Posting-Host: apprentice.qualcomm.com

richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes:
>In article <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> sander@carroll1.cc.edu (Scott B. Anderson) writes:
>they agreed to drop the case immediately in return for insignificant
>concessions from BSDI.  The outcome was an almost complete victory for
>BSDI and UCB.

If I remember correctly, the "switch to 4.4BSD and drop Net/2"
requirement was the only one of the terms which was made public.  
The impression I got from the announcement that was posted was that
there were other terms which were not being disclosed to the public.
So... we don't know if it was merely "insignificant" concessions.

And I'm not sure it qualifies as a complete victory.  A great deal
of work on 4.4 never got done because people were too busy dealing
with the court case and the lawyers, rather than writing and debugging
code.  Which is why the whole encumbered vs lite thing came about in
the first place.

--
____
\bi/  Ian McCloghrie      | FLUG:  FurryMUCK Linux User's Group
 \/   email: ian@ucsd.edu | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club
GCS (!)d-(--) p c++ l++(+++) u+ e- m+ s+/+ n+(-) h- f+ !g w+ t+ r y*
 
The above represents my personal opinions and not necessarily those
of my employer, Qualcomm Inc.