Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.unix.bsd:14501 comp.os.386bsd.misc:3026 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!news.cs.su.oz.au!metro!wabbit.cc.uow.edu.au!picasso.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au!wombat.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au!not-for-mail From: chrisb@cssc-syd.tansu.com.au (Chris Bitmead) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD - NeXT Date: 5 Aug 1994 09:42:46 +1000 Organization: Telecom Australia - CSSC Lines: 22 Distribution: world Message-ID: <31rudm$he4@wombat.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au> References: <MYCROFT.94Jul24025605@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <310j8t$gl4@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: wombat.cssc-syd.tansu.com.au sander@carroll1.cc.edu (Scott B. Anderson) writes: >bogstad@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: >>claims which would at least allow them to reach a trial. I believe that the >>case between BSD and USL (or BSDI and USL) were never actually tried so there >>is no legal precedent here. It's not even clear to me if the final legal >>agreements reached are even available to the public. Given that neither >> A happy Linux user, >> Bill Bogstad >> bogstad@cs.jhu.edu >Novell (USG) and BSDI *DID* go to court, the ruling (uncontested >by either side) was that BSDI had to use BSD 4.4lite code and >no code which ATT owned, just like the NetBSD agreement, only on >a different time table. No fines or damages were awarded, and BSDI >plans on a Thanksgiving (USA) release for its next version. Out of interest, how did NeXT get out of being sued? Isn't it based on bsd? Did they not use any disputed code or what?