Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!sdd.hp.com!spool.mu.edu!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!pipex!uunet!spcuna!spcvxb!terry From: terry@spcvxb.spc.edu (Terry Kennedy, Operations Mgr.) Subject: Re: Legalities Nntp-Posting-Host: spcvxa.spc.edu References: <1993Sep8.140654.12593@neb> Sender: news@spcuna.spc.edu (Network News) Organization: St. Peter's College, US Date: Thu, 9 Sep 1993 05:52:47 GMT Message-ID: <1993Sep9.015247.1@spcvxb.spc.edu> Lines: 49 In article <1993Sep8.140654.12593@neb>, bbs@neb (BBS System 801-572-4969) writes: > Just yesterday I was talking to a systems consultant about > free versions of Unix and he told me that BSDI is under > suit from AT&T for releasing NetBSD and 386BSD, and that > anyone who uses these programs is also liable. I have read > a couple of documents about the standoff between the two > companies, but the latest was dated March 1993, and it seemed > to show the ruling so far in BSDI's favor. What has changed > since then? (I'd really like to get a 4.3BSD compatible > system, if not 4.3/4.4BSD itself.) USL felt that the release of Net-2 code to the general public (without requiring a USL source license) violated USL's agreement with UC Berkeley. However, they didn't do anything about it until BSDI started shipping a complete system based on that code (with many enhancements, missing parts written, etc.). BSDI made a mistake in using a phone number of 800-ITS-UNIX, which was an infringement of USL's UNIX trademark. At that point USL sued BSDI, demanding that they change the phone number and no longer claim that BSD/386 was a "UNIX" operating system. BSDI complied. USL then amended the suit to add the complaint that USL code was used. The legal response was that BSDI got it from a public site where UC Berkeley contributed it. USL then decided to amend the suit to add UC Berkeley as a defendant. A lot of legal maneuvering went on. Finally, USL got a hearing on their request to prevent BSDI from shipping product. The judge decided that it was unlikely that USL would prevail in the suit if it was continued, and denied USL's request. Thus, BSDI's ability to ship product was affirmed, and they shipped V1.0. BSDI's customers are not legally liable for any of this. The worst case would be that BSDI loses the suit and support for BSD/386 would no longer be available. However, (IMHO) that isn't likely based on the court decis- ions so far. In later developments, UC Berkeley has sued USL for using 4BSD code in System V without appropriate credit being given. Also, the CEO of USL has left to pursue "other opportunites", and Novell (who now owns USL) seems more interested in shipping quality product than in filing lawsuits. My guess is that the suit will die over the next year or so. BSDI has nothing to do with the free BSD systems, other than the fact that they all started from the common code base of Net-2. However, if BSDI didn't defend Net-2, it's unlikely that the Net-2 software would be "legal", since (by definition) free software doesn't have the funds for a massive legal defense. Terry Kennedy Operations Manager, Academic Computing terry@spcvxa.bitnet St. Peter's College, Jersey City, NJ USA terry@spcvxa.spc.edu +1 201 915 9381