Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!decwrl!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!att!att!allegra!alice!andrew From: andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license! Summary: if you protest, protest effectively Message-ID: <23309@alice.att.com> Date: 24 Jul 92 18:51:47 GMT Article-I.D.: alice.23309 References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ Lines: 37 let me say up front that i work for at&t. i neither work for, nor have any influence on, USL. the opinions expressed below are my own and not at&t's. i am not a lawyer but although USL's suit is arguably outrageous, and certainly hamfisted, its main point seems plausible. USL has a lot vested in the trademark UNIX and it is simply prudent to protect that. BSDI asserts that its source is at&t-free; USL asserts it isn't at&t-free (or even usl-free). this kind of dispute is settled by suits all the time so it is disingenuous to claim USL shouldn't do so simply because it is big and BSDI is small. one might ask why USL didn't go after CSRG or UCB but again there is a plausible reason why BSDI is it; it is the first do attempt to make money from the NET-2 source (as far as i know). if you agree with me that the big issue is whether or not the NET-2 release is free of any licensing concerns, what can be done about that? you can either try to influence the (technical) decision in court or try to induce USL to drop the suit. (note that the latter simply leaves the issue unresolved until next time.) there have been numerous posts about the former (amicus briefs, supporting bsdi financially etc). there have been a bunch of posts on teh latter, mostly of uncertain value. attempting to affect USL through AT&T seems problematic. USL was setup solely to make it less connected to at&t. an embargo against system V would seem more directed and effective (although i certainly can't advocate that). an embargo against plan 9, as some have proposed, would be utterly pointless. do you seriously think for a femtosecond that USL gives a damn about you using plan 9? (i'm sure they are indifferent but if they had an opinion, they are probably glad you aren't using plan 9.) attempting to sum up, people who want to do something should figure out what they are concerned about befor ethey do it. andrew hume