Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!mips!mips!swrinde!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug6.140319.5931@crd.ge.com>
Date: 6 Aug 92 14:03:19 GMT
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <RV.92Aug4185218@tahoe.cs.brown.edu> <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com>
Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Distribution: usa
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
In article <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com>, terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
| This should not be necessary, in any case, as AT&T claims that the
| infringing code path was by way of CSRG and UCB, not necessarily contamination
| of programmers at BSDI.
Yes, let me restate that in one posting I said BSDI when I meant CSRG.
It was a slip of the acronym, not lack of understanding (or as one
person implied some adgenda against BSDI).
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile.