Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.misc Path: euryale.cc.adfa.oz.au!newshost.carno.net.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!munnari.OZ.AU!spool.mu.edu!newspump.sol.net!www.nntp.primenet.com!nntp.primenet.com!howland.erols.net!EU.net!usenet2.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!usenet1.news.uk.psi.net!uknet!uknet!newsfeed.ed.ac.uk!edcogsci!richard From: richard@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Subject: Re: Old BSD Source Code X-Nntp-Posting-Host: pitcairn Message-ID: <DyKLMx.7H8@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Sender: cnews@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (C News Software) Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh References: <19960922121710134506@pppx231.berlin.snafu.de> <AWB.96Sep25081534@margo.cstr.ed.ac.uk> <52kjah$r4r@herald.concentric.net> Date: Tue, 1 Oct 1996 00:06:31 GMT Lines: 21 In article <52kjah$r4r@herald.concentric.net> dantso@cris.com (Daniel Ts'o) writes: > I'm not sure exactly what you are claiming here. Why is there any >question whether USL-owned UNIX code is "propriety" ? Well, this was discussed at length in the UCB/BSDI-USL case. The defendants argued that (a) there was no copyright or trade secrets in the 32V code from which BSD was derived and (b) that they had documents from AT&T assigning ownership of any derivative works to UCB. So the matter is certainly in question. > The Unix source license was actually not based on copyright nor >patent, but trade secret. USL claimed violation of both, and UCB denied both. It's hard to believe that any trade secrets that might have existed in unix have not been long disclosed. -- Richard -- :wq