Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog From: grog@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license! Message-ID: <1832@adagio.UUCP> Date: 25 Jul 92 11:40:25 GMT References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> <23309@alice.att.com> Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany Lines: 36 In article <23309@alice.att.com> andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes: > 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. Well, it's nice to see a dissenting opinion. Nothing makes a discussion more uninteresting than everybody saying the same thing. But obviously your opinions are coloured by your origins. > 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. The obvious thing is to dismiss the suit until: 1. USL specifies *exactly* what it is that, in their opinion, is derived from AT&T code. 2. USL serves notice to BSDI to stop using this code. 3. BSDI does not comply within a reasonable time. The likelihood of (3) happening is low indeed. The fact is, I have no reason to believe that USL's stated grounds are the real reason for this lawsuit. They want to set a precedent - BSDI is small, comparatively vulnerable, and the uncertainty about the legal position will certainly cost them sales, not to mention the cost of litigation. If this is not in accordance with the US legal system, then something *desperately* needs to be done about that. -- Greg Lehey | Tel: +49-6637-1488 LEMIS | Fax: +49-6637-1489 Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany *** NOTE ***: Headers are mangled - reply to grog%lemis@Germany.EU.net