Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!yoyo.aarnet.edu.au!news.adelaide.edu.au!basser.cs.su.oz.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!dmssyd.syd.dms.CSIRO.AU!dmsperth.per.dms.CSIRO.AU!uniwa!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!news.intercon.com!panix!not-for-mail From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: USL vs. BSDI Lawsuit Settled Date: 10 Feb 1994 07:42:50 -0500 Organization: PANIX Public Access Internet and Unix, NYC Lines: 45 Message-ID: <2jda4a$sip@panix.com> References: <2j45sm$39l@BSDI.COM> <tgmCKv40r.Iz5@netcom.com> <CKvC57.MHy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> <2jc48t$1pa@pdq.coe.montana.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: panix.com In article <2jc48t$1pa@pdq.coe.montana.edu>, Nate Williams <nate@bsd.coe.montana.edu> wrote: >In article <CKvC57.MHy@cogsci.ed.ac.uk>, >Richard Tobin <richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >>In article <tgmCKv40r.Iz5@netcom.com> tgm@netcom.com (Thomas G. McWilliams) writes: >>>It seems that any NET/2 derived work is affected. From the above >>>quote it appears that continued distribution of full NET/2 source >>>is not allowed, and that BSDI will have to distribute portions in >>>binary form until it can substitute the agreed upon portions of >>>4.4(Lite). I guess that the big question of interest is exactly >>>what portions of NET/2 are not freely distributable. >> >>[Note - I'm not a lawyer.] >> >>The fact that BSDI and UCB agreed not to continue distributing >>portions of Net/2 does not mean that they aren't legally freely >>distributable. It just meant that BSDI and UCB decided it was in >>their interests to agree to cease distributing them (presumably in >>return for USL dropping the suit). As far as I know, USL has not >>threatened any 386BSD (etc) users with lawsuits, and I see no reason >>for any of us to worry about it. > >But they are completely free to 'threaten' those groups. > >>PS Can the NetBSD / FreeBSD people confirm that USL haven't tried >> to stop them distributing anything? > >I can't speak for NetBSD, but nobody has approached FreeBSD that I'm >aware of (yet). Howeer, there is no reason for them NOT to sue us for >distributing (and reasons to since they must feel there are valid >reasons for protecting their code) 'tainted' code, so it is the #1 >priority of FreeBSD to replace those tainted files in FreeBSD with the >code release in 4.4 lite when we get access to it. If you are threatened, it bears remembering that USL was forced to the bargaining table by UCB's more-than-slightly-convincing establishment of the fact that 32V is not copyrighted. All of the relevant arguments are part of the public record... -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM But as he knew no bad language, he had called him all the names of common objects that he could think of, and had screamed: "You lamp! You towel! You plate!" and so on. --Sigmund Freud