Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!sdl!tal
From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: USL vs. BSDI, and what to do
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.170447.11039@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division
References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <2cHS02Pi1bvx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <l6vrqvINN91g@neuro.usc.edu> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:04:47 GMT
Lines: 36
In <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
> o Domestic and international letters should be addressed to:
> o Mr. Robert E. Allen
> Chief Executive Officer and
> Chairman of the Board of Directors
>[...]
I hate to say this, but Bob has nothing to do with this. AT&T didn't
bring the law suit. USL did. USL has a different chair person, and
has their own lawyers (from what I've heard, they don't share lawyers...
so much for the "army of lawyers").
> o These letters should also point out that the release notes for
> the public releases of 4.3BSD-NET1 (June 1988) and 4.3BSD-NET2
> distributions clearly state that they contain no code licensed
> by AT&T or others -- instead, the code is owned by the Regents
> of the University of California -- and the code may be used by
> anyone for any purpose as long as due credit is given to the
> University and the University copyright notices are retained.
Thought I haven't seen a complete copy of the suit (could someone post
it or email it to me?) I believe all it claims is that proper black box
techniques were not used to generate the NET2 (not NET1) release.
(blackbox techniques means like what Phoenix used when developing their
BIOS clone). Doesn't that make the above statement moot?
Hype from all over, more heat than light, more flames than news.
I think I'll start reading talk.bizarre instead.
Tom
--
Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play)
Maybe Bush will follow Perot's lead.