home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2983 comp.os.mach:1231
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
- Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!batcomputer!theory.TC.Cornell.EDU!riley
- From: riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley)
- Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
- Message-ID: <1992Sep10.154030.29282@tc.cornell.edu>
- Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi
- Sender: news@tc.cornell.edu
- Nntp-Posting-Host: theory.tc.cornell.edu
- Organization: Cornell Theory Center
- References: <PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <18b52oINNicr@agate.berkeley.edu> <PCG.92Sep9230720@aberdb.aber.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:40:30 GMT
- Lines: 23
-
- In article <PCG.92Sep9230720@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
- >jbuck> disputing USL's ownership of Unix itself, given all the major
- >jbuck> contributions from Berkeley and elsewhere.
- >
- >I doubt this strategy is tenable. Part of the educational UNIX source
- >license are clauses that state:
- [...]
- > 2) all work done by the licensee *on* UNIX (the kernel) becomes
- > the intellectual property of the licensor, AT&T/USL.
-
- I believe CSRG never signed a license with this clause. Several
- people have stated that CSRG refused to sign any UNIX licenses after
- 32V specifically because of the appearance of this clause. This is
- supported by the observation that the last license sited in the USL
- complaint is the 32V license, and the USL complaint never cites this
- clause. If CSRG had agreed to such a license, there surely would not
- be a BSDI, and the USL suit would be open-and-shut.
-
- Followups to alt.suit.att-bsdi, where this has been discussed before.
-
- --
- -Dan Riley Internet: dsr@lns598.tn.cornell.edu
- -Wilson Lab, Cornell University HEPNET/SPAN: lns598::dsr (44630::dsr)
-