Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:14430 comp.os.386bsd.misc:2893 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!msuinfo!agate!howland.reston.ans.net!swrinde!ihnp4.ucsd.edu!qualcomm.com!apprentice!ianm From: ianm@apprentice.qualcomm.com (Ian McCloghrie) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD Date: 29 Jul 94 18:00:20 GMT Organization: QUALCOMM, Incorporated; San Diego, CA, USA Lines: 26 Message-ID: <ianm.775504820@apprentice> References: <310j8t$gl4@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> <Ctp913.6Cn@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: apprentice.qualcomm.com richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) writes: >In article <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> sander@carroll1.cc.edu (Scott B. Anderson) writes: >they agreed to drop the case immediately in return for insignificant >concessions from BSDI. The outcome was an almost complete victory for >BSDI and UCB. If I remember correctly, the "switch to 4.4BSD and drop Net/2" requirement was the only one of the terms which was made public. The impression I got from the announcement that was posted was that there were other terms which were not being disclosed to the public. So... we don't know if it was merely "insignificant" concessions. And I'm not sure it qualifies as a complete victory. A great deal of work on 4.4 never got done because people were too busy dealing with the court case and the lawyers, rather than writing and debugging code. Which is why the whole encumbered vs lite thing came about in the first place. -- ____ \bi/ Ian McCloghrie | FLUG: FurryMUCK Linux User's Group \/ email: ian@ucsd.edu | Card Carrying Member, UCSD Secret Islandia Club GCS (!)d-(--) p c++ l++(+++) u+ e- m+ s+/+ n+(-) h- f+ !g w+ t+ r y* The above represents my personal opinions and not necessarily those of my employer, Qualcomm Inc.