From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: University of Utah Computer Center
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 92 01:40:37 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec22231804@world.std.com>, bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
|> 
|> Sorry to burst your bubble, but the reason the University of
|> California has also been named in the suit is because the issue is
|> whether or not the original Net2 release distributed by UCB (which
|> both BSDI and Jolix are derived from) contained code proprietary to
|> USL.

If this were true, then UCB ould have been the sole defendant named in the
suit.  UCB was not a defendant in the original suit, only the expanded
suit; in addition, since UCB has not been making commercial use of the
code, the alleged violations of civil law by UCB would be a smaller set
than the alleged violations by BSDI.  Their status as codefendant is
based only on the alegged violations pertaining to distribution/disclosure.
The fact that 32V was the last release UCB licensed from AT&T (Western
Electric at that time) also limits their liability and AT&T potential
ownership of the subsequent code.

These are only a few of the reasons UCB and BSDI are in two very different
boats in this legal action.

|> I do not believe that USL has claimed that BSDI has *added* any
|> proprietary code to their product, only that the Net2 code it derives
|> from always contained such code. So the same would be true for Jolix.

Actually, this is precisely what I read into the suit as it was initially
posted.

|> Would you put up your house to start a business entirely dependant on
|> Linux or Jolix right now? Would you expect to be able to talk someone
|> else into investing in a company based on this situation?

Certainly not Linux; I believe my views on the viability of enterprises
based on GPLed software are well known.  Not on 386BSD (what you are
calling "Jolix") either, but for different reasons, first and foremost
being a non-competition agreement with my employer (a close second being
that it isn't quite "cooked" yet, with a third being other projects with
higher priority ...).  The point being that I wouldn't feel insecure in
such an investment.

If the BSDI suit is resolved as a trade secret issue rather than a
copyright issue, the trade secrets will, by definition, be lost.  I can
see code based on 386BSD being distributed, with those proprietary parts
being licensed from AT&T for less than licensing the whole of SVR4; there
is still a potential for profit in 386BSD.

I doubt that USL will pursue this to the exclusion of all competitiors, if
only because of the difficulty in getting sole-source justification for
government contracts, and the SVID compliance ruling against DEC on a
previous goverment contract (It was either AFCAC 451 or Desktop III) making
it difficult to avoid being fined otherwise.

|> Let's not try to wish away what is going on here.

I agree, but at the same time lets not paint a grimmer picture than
actually exists in an effort to sway opinions.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                        "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
 Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix