Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!think.com!unixland!rmkhome!rmk From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Organization: The Man With Ten Cats Date: Wed, 16 Dec 1992 03:16:50 GMT Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) Message-ID: <9212152217.13@rmkhome.UUCP> References: <1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com> <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Dec14.162111.29882@crd.ge.com> Lines: 42 In article <1992Dec14.162111.29882@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, bogstad@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: > >| I'ld like to know why people think that USL won't sue the Jolitzes >| if they win against BSDI. Is there something magically wrong that BSDI did >| that the Jolitzes didn't. (Okay, BSDI charges money.) Still, I'ld like >| 386BSD and the other freeware Unix clones to succeed to the extent that I >| can purchase support for them. I'm quite happy to hack on my own system for >| fun, but when I go to work it would be nice to be able to use the same >| system. Until I can safely trade some of my employers money for less >| hacking on the company time clock, I won't be able to do this. I can >| understand that this might not be the primary goal of either Jolitz (386BSD) >| or Linus (Linux); but I would hope that neither one of them would mind their >| software being used for something besides hacking. I predict that if it >| appears even remotely that 386BSD or Linux are starting to encroach on the >| commercial Unix market; USL will take any and all legal steps possible to >| stop their further distribution. > > Note that AT&T signed off on Coherent, even though the authors had >obviously seen AT&T code. If AT&T has reason to believe that there is >AT&T code in NET2, or paraphrased routines, or program structures, they >have the right and obligation to sue. Linux was clearly written from >scratch, as opposed to having been written based on AT&T code ant then >"cleansed." I don't think there's much comparison. Actually, Dennis Ritchie looked at Coherent and waved his hand over it. Things were a little more informal in those days. However, AT&T did tell some competitors of MWC that Coherent was tainted before DR saw the code. This caused MWC to lose a large contract. > For those who aren't up on legal positions, if the officers of a >company don't protect the assets of the company (like code and trade >secrets) the stockholders have the right to sue the officers to recover >lost profits. As in sue them personally. Without making any judgement on >the merits of the case, I can't imagine the owner of the code NOT >protecting it. Really. -- Rick Kelly rmk@rmkhome.UUCP unixland!rmkhome!rmk rmk@frog.UUCP