Date: 24 Jan 2003 10:02:45 -0800 From: swear@attbi.com (Gary W. Swearingen) To: Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> Cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Lawyers to be sicked on *BSD? Message-ID: <rifzrimnne.zri@localhost.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <3E30C49B.51D10FAC@mindspring.com> References: <0gvg0gn1o4.g0g@localhost.localdomain> <3E2F3BE6.A8FEEFA5@mindspring.com> <3E30B7AA.7000008@quadtelecom.com> <3E30C49B.51D10FAC@mindspring.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert2@mindspring.com> writes: > The reason they retained him was to obtain advice on licensing the > "System V on Linux" code; basically, IBCS2 and other binary pieces > needed for running System V programs under Linux, including the > shared libraries. Too bad that news reporters don't know enough about what they're covering to get to the heart of the matter like that. (Of course, they tend to benefit from getting things wrong.) (I realize this FUD should not be taken too seriously; I'm just chatting (or is it "chattering"?).) Are the "Sys V" issues about licensing copyrights or patents or both? I still wonder why the CEO mentions the code in OS/X with USL copyrights. He wan't talking about IBCS2 code, was he? Or maybe he was; I see /usr/src/sys/i386/ibcs2/ here in FreeBSD. IBCS2 wasn't in the UCB/USL settlement, was it? To add to the FUD, I'll note that we are trusting UCB & BSDi in knowing the legal status of the codebase. Only they know the terms of the secret settlement which USL thinks is "excellent" because it "preserves USL's legitimate interest in protecting its intellectual property". Like whether it covers patents or only copyrights and even whether it protects anyone but UCB & BSDi. We have only their press releases (which don't explicitly mention patents) and we have the copyright "licenses" of unprovable origin attached to the suspect code. But I'm not worried; UCB should be trustworthy and, anyway, OS/X is the only BSD-family OS who's got much to worry about because the others don't have anyone associated with them worth the costs of putting a legal squeeze on. I read that "BSD 4.4-Lite derived code bases" have nothing to worry about. (Let's assume the settlement says that.) Isn't the Linux kernel derived from BSD 4.4-Lite? There was never much BSD code involved and maybe none by now, but it's still a derivative. FreeBSD is "more" of a derivative, but much less than it was in 1995. Is OS/X 4.4-Lite-derived? How much derivation is needed to satisfy the terms of the secret settlement? To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?rifzrimnne.zri>