Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!kithrup!sef From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:05:32 GMT Message-ID: <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM> References: <83873@netnews.upenn.edu> <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com> <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> Lines: 59 In article <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> rob@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson) writes: >i think they are suing over the use of the U-word..... I don't think so... BSDi went to great efforts to remove the word "UNIX" (a registered trademark of USL) from their system. There are a bunch of papers on ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/usl. Ok, not a bunch, just five, that seem to have a bunch of information in them (I'm still looking over them now). One of the complaints was about the 1-800-ITS-UNIX (I didn't know ITS was unix compatible... hmm), which is no longer a valid phone number, seeming, to me at least, that that part of the complaint is either resolved or no longer relevant. One of the interesting paragraphs is: 14. Substantial portions of BSDI's BSD/386 operating system are copied from, based upon, or otherwise derived from, USL's proprietary software products. Plantiff reserves the right to seek an ammendment of this Complaint to add claims for relief with respect to violation by BSDI of USL's proprietary rights upon the development of additional facts. and 24. As shown in Exhibit B, BSDI's promotional materials contain the following representations concerning its "BSD/386" system: BSD/386 is a "Berkeley UNIX" compatible operating system for the 386 and 486 PC architectures. It is based on the most recent release from the Computer Systems Research Group of the University of California, Berkeley - the Networking Release 2. The NET2 tape contained no AT&T licensed code, but was not a complete system. BSDI has completed the system and added additional drivers. The resulting system does not require a license from AT&T, and so is available in source form at a fraction of AT&T's price. 25. This statement is materially false and misleading in that, among other things, the "Networking Release 2" referred to therein contains software code that was copied from, based upon, or derived from, code licensed to the Regents by AT&T, such that any operating system derived from "Networking Release 2" requires a license from AT&T or its successor, USL. In other words (potentially *wrong* words, mind you, since I'm not a lawyer), *anything* based on the Net/2 tape, according to USL, requires an AT&T/USL license!! (EEEEP!) I'm not done reading files yet, but thought I'd mention the above stuff now. Comments, anyone? -- 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.