Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process
Message-ID: <1992Dec14.162111.29882@crd.ge.com>
Date: 14 Dec 92 16:21:11 GMT
References: <1992Dec12.233537.12931@netcom.com> <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 34
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
In article <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>, bogstad@gauss.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes:
| I'ld like to know why people think that USL won't sue the Jolitzes
| if they win against BSDI. Is there something magically wrong that BSDI did
| that the Jolitzes didn't. (Okay, BSDI charges money.) Still, I'ld like
| 386BSD and the other freeware Unix clones to succeed to the extent that I
| can purchase support for them. I'm quite happy to hack on my own system for
| fun, but when I go to work it would be nice to be able to use the same
| system. Until I can safely trade some of my employers money for less
| hacking on the company time clock, I won't be able to do this. I can
| understand that this might not be the primary goal of either Jolitz (386BSD)
| or Linus (Linux); but I would hope that neither one of them would mind their
| software being used for something besides hacking. I predict that if it
| appears even remotely that 386BSD or Linux are starting to encroach on the
| commercial Unix market; USL will take any and all legal steps possible to
| stop their further distribution.
Note that AT&T signed off on Coherent, even though the authors had
obviously seen AT&T code. If AT&T has reason to believe that there is
AT&T code in NET2, or paraphrased routines, or program structures, they
have the right and obligation to sue. Linux was clearly written from
scratch, as opposed to having been written based on AT&T code ant then
"cleansed." I don't think there's much comparison.
For those who aren't up on legal positions, if the officers of a
company don't protect the assets of the company (like code and trade
secrets) the stockholders have the right to sue the officers to recover
lost profits. As in sue them personally. Without making any judgement on
the merits of the case, I can't imagine the owner of the code NOT
protecting it.
--
bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345
Keyboard controller has been disabled, press F1 to continue.