Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!caen!umeecs!sparky.eecs.umich.edu!gilgalad From: gilgalad@sparky.eecs.umich.edu (Ralph Seguin) Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Message-ID: <1992Jul31.220644.25857@zip.eecs.umich.edu> Sender: news@zip.eecs.umich.edu (Mr. News) Organization: University of Michigan EECS Dept., Ann Arbor References: <l6rld6INN3dh@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul28.060822.29603@serveme.chi.il.us> <Bs9nLo.I2n@cs.psu.edu> Date: Fri, 31 Jul 1992 22:06:44 GMT Lines: 18 In article <Bs9nLo.I2n@cs.psu.edu> ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) writes: >While USL/AT&T is appeartently making trademark infringement and unfair >competition the center piece of the suit against BSDI, it seems to me that >the real crux of the matter will be the definition of the term "derived >work" as it relates to a copyright. In the past I have been told that any >"derived work" is, by law, the sole property of the copyright holder. If >USL/AT&T can prove in court that the NET-2 code is a "derived work" from >previous copyrighted USL/AT&T code then they will (unfortunately) prevail in >their suit. I went to school. I learned things. I read books. Since I read those books, and those books contained concepts, I should be sued if I should ever come up with an idea of my own. :) It is utterly ridiculous for AT&T, USL or anybody else to say that you are unable to think creatively after seeing something else. -Ralph