🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PCG.92Sep9230720@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>jbuck> disputing USL's ownership of Unix itself, given all the major
>jbuck> contributions from Berkeley and elsewhere.
>
>I doubt this strategy is tenable. Part of the educational UNIX source
>license are clauses that state:
[...]
>	2) all work done by the licensee *on* UNIX (the kernel) becomes
>	the intellectual property of the licensor, AT&T/USL.

I believe CSRG never signed a license with this clause.  Several
people have stated that CSRG refused to sign any UNIX licenses after
32V specifically because of the appearance of this clause.  This is
supported by the observation that the last license sited in the USL
complaint is the 32V license, and the USL complaint never cites this
clause.  If CSRG had agreed to such a license, there surely would not
be a BSDI, and the USL suit would be open-and-shut.

Followups to alt.suit.att-bsdi, where this has been discussed before.

-- 
-Dan Riley                          Internet: dsr@lns598.tn.cornell.edu
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University     HEPNET/SPAN: lns598::dsr (44630::dsr)