From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: alt
Date: Sat, 26 Dec 92 23:24:13 GMT

In article <BZS.92Dec24223645@world.std.com> bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>
>From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) [responding to me]
>>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.
>
>That's probably true, but it's not awfully important vis a vis the
>issue of whether or not the Net2 code is proprietary to USL. Yes,
>there were some trademark claims etc.

Actually, I think this is of ultimate importance based on the wording of
the 32V licenses and the fact that WECO/AT&T was prohibited from entering
the commercial software arena (by the Sherman antitrust acts) and said
licenses attempted to assert commercial rights... an illegal act, at the
time.

>>Their status as codefendant is based only on the alleged violations
>>pertaining to distribution/disclosure.
>
>That's a big, big "only".

No, not really; it's the basis of whether it is legal to distribute the
UCB code for non-commercial (ie: educational) use, but contrary to the 32V
license to distribute it for commercial use.

>>These are only a few of the reasons UCB and BSDI are in two very different
>>boats in this legal action.
>
>Well, not very different, remove the right to the code and what's left
>really?

The right to distribute the code.

The right to produce code embodying trade secrets embodied in the original
code.

The right to deriitive works.

etc.

etc.

>If USL manages to bankrupt BSDI by removing their only livelihood I
>can't see USL expecting (or even pursuing) much in damage claims on
>other matters. However, USL could seek damages from the University of
>California I suppose, they'd still be solvent.

This is true, but unlikely.  UCB would be likely to write something better
than Plan 9 out of spite.  ;-).

>>|> 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;
>
>Why not Linux (relative to the suit)? That's probably the least in
>danger of the variants on the table, tho I think it is in danger
>ultimately.
>
>>I believe my views on the viability of enterprises
>>based on GPLed software are well known.
>
>Oh, I see, we're off on a tangent. I was referring to the suit and its
>potential consequences.

Ah, but a manufactured tangent!  I stated that I did not think it would be
a bad investment to do so with 386BSD, even if parts were under license
from USL, and that only my current legal, contractual, and ethical
obligations have kept me from doing so!  This is a far, far different
statement than your quoting of my first sentence would lead people to
believe.  Shame on you.  What I was stating was *why* I felt there wasn't
enough money in Linux or other GPLed code to provide an adequate return on
investment for the cost of a house.

People who disagree with me have this annoying tendency to paint me as a
GNU-basher to get support behind them rather than speaking to the point.
A large flame fest isn't what it takes to change my opinions on somthing,
nor is it likely to be a satisfactory resoloution of the issues in the
long run.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@icarus.weber.edu
					terry_lambert@novell.com
---
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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:735 comp.org.eff.talk:8124