From owner-freebsd-current Tue Nov 23 16:53: 2 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (GndRsh.dnsmgr.net [198.145.92.4]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1DE9315493; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:52:57 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net) Received: (from freebsd@localhost) by gndrsh.dnsmgr.net (8.9.3/8.9.3) id QAA43802; Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:52:55 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from freebsd) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" Message-Id: <199911240052.QAA43802@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> Subject: Re: FreeBSD security auditing project. In-Reply-To: <19991123142258.C49964@dragon.nuxi.com> from "David O'Brien" at "Nov 23, 1999 02:22:58 pm" To: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG Date: Tue, 23 Nov 1999 16:52:54 -0800 (PST) Cc: current@FreeBSD.ORG X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL54 (25)] MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG > > 2) I propose that diff(1) FreeBSD with {Open|Net}BSD, > > This is not the easiest thing to do (I've tried). Rather one should look > at what changes OpenBSD has done to a piece of code since they imported > it from NetBSD and compare with FreeBSD code to see if the OpenBSD change > is applicable to us. > > {Net,Open}BSD kept a lot of Net/2 [influenced] code (not sure how they > were allowed to do that), It's not so much that they where ``allowed'' to do it, it is more the matter that they where never directly served with legal papers from USL/Novell to cease all use of Net/2. Nor did they ever enter into any agreement, that I am aware of, with respect to Net/2 code with any party other than UCB. Walnut Creek and FreeBSD where sent letters by USL/Novell specifically requesting us to cease all use of Net/2. Out of this a formal and legally binding agreement between Walnut Creek and USL/Novell was reached, further I belive Jordan Hubbard signed a like agreement on behalf of FreeBSD. These agreements basically say that the parties would stop all use of Net/2 based code and replace it with BSD4.4 Lite, which is what was done. There are more details, but those are ``not to be disclosed''. One could make claim that Novell/USL seriously failed to do ``due dilegence'', but they where not protecting a trademark, but instead a copyright and they could, if they still owned the code. come along and slap NetBSD/OpenBSD with a pretty healthy law suite. > while we started fresh with 4.4BSD. Thus diffs > between us and them in userland utils and be quite different. > Technically if I where to bring a NetBSD repository over to my box and then let anyone other than myself even look at it I would be in violation of the USL/Novell agreement due to the fact that the repository contains Net/2 code. :-(. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message