From owner-freebsd-chat Fri Sep 10 12: 8:40 1999 Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from shell.webmaster.com (mail.webmaster.com [209.133.28.73]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 668BA14A08 for ; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:08:37 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from davids@webmaster.com) Received: from whenever ([209.133.29.2]) by shell.webmaster.com (Post.Office MTA v3.5.3 release 223 ID# 0-12345L500S10000V35) with SMTP id com; Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:08:36 -0700 From: "David Schwartz" To: "Brett Glass" , Subject: RE: Market share and platform support Date: Fri, 10 Sep 1999 12:08:36 -0700 Message-ID: <003101befbbf$e22bd000$021d85d1@youwant.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook 8.5, Build 4.71.2377.0 In-reply-to: <4.2.0.58.19990909220642.04737670@localhost> X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Importance: Normal Sender: owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.org > At 10:42 AM 9/9/99 -0500, Jonathan Lemon wrote: > It wouldn't have to allow it. All WC would need to do is assert its legal > right to its employees' work, and it would own code in the tree. And > could license it however it wanted. > > I seem to recall a lawsuit by a large telephone company in which there > was a similar issue. Oh sure, all they'd have to do is deny having knowingly released it under the BSD license. "What those CDROMs we sold? We had no idea our employee's work was on them! And we had no idea they were under the BSD license!". Somehow, I can't imagine that argument being made with a straight face. DS To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message