Path: nntp.gmd.de!newsserver.jvnc.net!yale.edu!spool.mu.edu! bloom-beacon.mit.edu!ai-lab!life.ai.mit.edu!mycroft From: mycr...@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu (Charles M. Hannum) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Legal status of NetBSD Date: 24 Jul 1994 06:56:05 GMT Organization: MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Lines: 46 Message-ID: <MYCROFT.94Jul24025605@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: duality.ai.mit.edu I've just reviewed this with Chris Demetriou, who actually talked with USL, and I believe it's safe for me to say the following. Our agreement with USL is as follows. Chris has a signed letter from USL to this effect, but the following text is not an exact quote. 1) We must cease distribution of a certain list of files from Net/2 and files derived from them by July 31, 1994. [These files have either been replaced with versions from 4.4-Lite, have been rewritten, or were simply not in our source tree anyway.] 2) Further distribution of the aforementioned files before July 31, 1994 must include a USL copyright notice, as well as prominent notice of the copyright and a list of restricted files in the `release documents'. It was specified that NetBSD-current did not count as a `release' for purposes of the latter restriction regarding `release documents'. This does not apply to already packaged releases, though we must cease distribution of those releases by July 31, 1994. [These notices were added to our source tree, and thus to the code we were actively distributing, very soon after the agreement arrived.] 3) Distribution of another list of files before or after July 31, 1994 is not restricted, but they must include a USL copyright notice. [Again, these notices were added to our source tree. At least one of these files was actually rewritten, derived from another version to which this does not apply.] 4) There were no other restrictions. Thus, as you can infer for yourself, NetBSD 1.0 is not encumbered by USL. (Now, I'd like to request that all of the people who had the nerve to publicly rant about how `unclean' NetBSD is, GO AWAY. And I mean this in the nicest way I can, considering how much of my time has been wasted in this absolutely stupid and useless thread, and considering how rude and insulting the statements and insinuations about us have been.) -- - Charles Hannum NetBSD group Working ports: i386, hp300, amiga, sun4c, mac68k, pc532, da30. In progress: sun3, pmax, vax, sun4m.
Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!yeshua.marcam.com!MathWorks.Com! europa.eng.gtefsd.com!howland.reston.ans.net!spool.mu.edu!carroll1.cc.edu! carroll1.cc.edu!not-for-mail From: san...@carroll1.cc.edu (Scott B. Anderson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD Date: 28 Jul 1994 16:59:48 -0500 Organization: The Carroll College InterNet News site Lines: 19 Message-ID: <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> References: <MYCROFT.94Jul24025605@duality.gnu.ai.mit.edu> <310j8t$gl4@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: carroll1.cc.edu bogs...@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu (Bill Bogstad) writes: >claims which would at least allow them to reach a trial. I believe that the >case between BSD and USL (or BSDI and USL) were never actually tried so there >is no legal precedent here. It's not even clear to me if the final legal >agreements reached are even available to the public. Given that neither > A happy Linux user, > Bill Bogstad > bogs...@cs.jhu.edu Novell (USG) and BSDI *DID* go to court, the ruling (uncontested by either side) was that BSDI had to use BSD 4.4lite code and no code which ATT owned, just like the NetBSD agreement, only on a different time table. No fines or damages were awarded, and BSDI plans on a Thanksgiving (USA) release for its next version. Scott Anderson san...@carroll1.cc.edu
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.386bsd.misc Path: bga.com!news.sprintlink.net!hookup!news.moneng.mei.com! howland.reston.ans.net!agate!doc.ic.ac.uk!uknet!festival!edcogsci!richard From: rich...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk (Richard Tobin) Subject: Re: Legal status of NetBSD Message-ID: <Ctp913.6Cn@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> Organization: HCRC, University of Edinburgh References: <310j8t$gl4@csugrad.cs.vt.edu> <310u0n$krt@rhombus.cs.jhu.edu> <3199ok$kq5@carroll1.cc.edu> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 1994 11:24:39 GMT Lines: 39 In article <3199ok$...@carroll1.cc.edu> san...@carroll1.cc.edu (Scott B. Anderson) writes: >Novell (USG) and BSDI *DID* go to court, the ruling (uncontested >by either side) was ... How many times do I have to say this? *There was no ruling.* The case was settled out-of-court by an agreement between the parties. >BSDI had to use BSD 4.4lite code and no code which ATT owned BSDI *agreed* to switch to 4.4-lite, which they had planned to do anyway! There has been no court ruling on USL's claim. The closest was the judge's refusal to grant USL a preliminary injunction preventing BSDI from distributing their system, indicating that USL had not shown that there was a "reasonable probability of eventual success" for their claim. *My interpretation* of the settlement is that USL saw that they would lose the case (and maybe even have it declared that they had no copyright in 32V), but could have dragged it out indefinitely which would have had bad consequences for BSDI. As a face-saving measure they agreed to drop the case immediately in return for insignificant concessions from BSDI. The outcome was an almost complete victory for BSDI and UCB. If you want to verify the facts, you can get the relevant documents by anonymous ftp from macbeth.cogsci.ed.ac.uk in /pub/usl-vs-bsd, or by WWW from http://macbeth.cogsci/pub/usl-vs-bsd. -- Richard -- Richard Tobin, HCRC, Edinburgh University R.To...@ed.ac.uk Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.