Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!cheops!pclink From: pclink@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au (Rick) Subject: Re: AT&T/USL CD-ROM Review Process Message-ID: <1992Dec15.033540.483@cheops.qld.tne.oz.au> Organization: Telecom Australia, TNE Computer Support Services References: <1ge0aaINNm4d@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Dec13.165418.5021@sbcs.sunysb.edu> <1992Dec13.183240.23944@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> <1992Dec14.165913.6896@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1992 03:35:40 GMT Lines: 17 terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes: >Second, Linux is arguably more like SVR3 (and by extension SVR4) than >386BSD; this, I believe, puts it in more danger of censure. The thing >that has protected Linux so far is its international (non-US) origin. >This is not something USL has to worry about forever, it's simply an >inconvenience to prosecution, not a barrier. If a judgement were given >regarding copyright infringement by Linux against USL's materials, it >wouldn't matter that the judgement occurred in the US; Linus' government >would be forced by the Berne convention to uphold the judgement. Forgive my density, but prosecution under what grounds? It's my understanding that Linus has written Linux from scratch (with a leg-up from Minix). Surely Andrew Tannenbaum would have more grounds for copyright infringement than USL? Rick.