Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!JUTS!griffin!gab10
From: gab10@griffincd.amdahl.com (Gary A Browning)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <2cHS02Pi1bvx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com>
Date: 24 Jul 92 07:21:12 GMT
References: <1992Jul21.104627.3353@mel.dit.csiro.au> <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>
Sender: netnews@ccc.amdahl.com
Organization: Amdahl Corporation, Sunnyvale CA
Lines: 33
In article <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg>,
eoahmad@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg (Othman Ahmad) writes:
> In article <1992Jul21.104627.3353@mel.dit.csiro.au
smart@wanda.mel.dit.CSIRO.AU (Robert Smart) writes:
>
>> This is insanity. Surely this will be thrown out of court.
> Who is going to defend NET/2?
The person/organization AT&T might sue in the future over NET/2.
BSDI is not responsible for NET/2 so you cannot sue them to have it
purged. As I see it, the NET/2 distribution is not in question here.
What can happen is a precedent that goes against using the NET/2
sources in a working O/S. (or, of course, AT&T could try to sue
UCB. But I doubt it, since it is going to be hard to explain why
they waited all these years).
Just my opinion. I am not a lawyer.
Personally, I think AT&T is just trying to put BSDI out of bussiness.
They must know that BSDI is not capable of funding major legal battles
at this stage in its development. Makes no difference if their case
will stand up in court - only that it not be thrown out on an early
decision.
I like the idea of sending letters of complaint to AT&T explaining
why you have requested changing your long-distance carrier. Seems like
fair play in light of AT&T's tactics.
--
Gary Browning | Exhilaration is that feeling you get just after a
| great idea hits you, and just before you realize
| what is wrong with it.