🚀 go-pugleaf

A repost from comp.unix.bsd:

From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Berkeley Strikes Back?
Message-ID: <scs.712849571@hela.iti.org>
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 13:46:11 GMT

hal@pollux.cs.uga.edu (Hal N. Brooks) writes:

>I don't have the AT&T license at hand, but here's a tidbit from an
>old "Sun Microsystems Educational Institution Source Code License":

>11.0  MODIFICATIONS
>      Nothing in this License shall preclude LICENSEE from modifying
>      the Licensed Software and developing derivative works, including
>      enhancements and extensions of the Licensed Software, for its
>      own use.  All such modifications and derivative works shall be
>      the personal property of Sun and thus subject to all terms and
>      conditions of this License.

>That last sentence is a real gotcha!  

The current AT&T licences contain a similar statement.  It was not
always there.  If memory serves, it was the appearance of this
statement in the licence that caused the Regents to stop getting AT&T
source.  They did not sign a licence with that statement.
-- 
"If life were fair, the acquisition of a large bosom or a massive inheritance
 would have no bearing on your ability to attract the opposite sex, and Dan
 Quayle would be making a living asking runny-nosed children, `Do you want
 fries with that?'"     -- John Cleese