Terry Lambert wrote:
> Bill Moran wrote:
>>I don't think so. Some of the things the BSD lawsuit established are a) in
>>circumstances where code has been stolen, you can't stop the entire project,
>>you just remove the offending code

> Actually, this is not true. You can ask Jordan, Nate, Chris D.
> and other who got the "Cease and Desist" letter. Originally,
> only BSDI has the ability to continue to distribute binaries
> (but not sources) until they could base their code on the
> 4.4Lite release.
> The reason that FreeBSD and NetBSD got the same deal on shipping
> code until 4.4Lite came out from CSRG was that I and a couple
> other of the senior engineers at Novell USG camped out in Mike
> DeFazio's office (then V.P. of Novell USG, and a guy who came to
> Novell with the USL acquisition) and squawked like chickens for
> all we were worth. We also got Art Sabsovitch and Dennis Ritchie
> involved; Art was Novell USG (USL)'s Chief Scientist at the time,
> and Dennis Ritchie was... Dennis Ritchie. Not a USL employee, he
> was still on good terms with the USL folks. 8-). We even had
> some die-hard Linux people involved ("You're next!") who were
> then Novell employees, people like Jim Freeman.

Wow. It's amazing the things that go on that you don't really hear
about unless you're directly involved.

> We pointed out that FreeBSD had moved copies of the archives off
> shore into non-Berne signatory countries (which they had, and
> which a number of us had been very insistent on recommending as
> soon as the BSDI suit became public -- well before UCB was dragged
> into the fray, and a while before the Novell acquisition of USL --
> and with it the suit). With no Copyright treaties with the U.S.,
> and being prepared to distribute from there, these people, at least,
> could act with impunity (this is the main reason why I think that
> Linux doesn't need to worry, too). The code had been saved.
> This was the same strategy later used to get around U.S. ITAR
> restrictions, though in that case, all the code came from outside
> the U.S. at the time. I think that Mark Murray, as much as we
> sometimes piss each other off (Hi, Mark!) deserves much of the
> unsung credit for getting the U.S. to relax it's crypto export
> restrictions, whose only effect was to depress creation of U.S.
> cryptographers and encourage their creation in non-treaty
> countries -- a "double whammy".
> Those of us who had been long time Novell employees also personally
> lobbied Ray Noorda, using such arguments as "It will be annoying to
> the competitor from Redmond", and "It's a public relations coup,
> waiting to be grasped". 8-). I think that was a factor in Ray
> later ordering the suit dropped, and in Novell's current coming out
> against it: it's part of their culture and history now.
> In any case, there wasn't any such legal precedent established
> Novell permitting the distribution of FreeBSD and NetBSD.

I'm still having trouble understanding the motive behind all this.
Obviously, SCO can't seriously believe they can gain anything from
this lawsuit ... Are they nuts and actually think they can win? Is
there some other motive that no one has yet to discern? Even if
the "Microsoft Conspiracy" theories are true, what does MS expect
to gain from such a silly attack, and why would SCO agree to be
a patsy?

The other thing that irritates me is the fact that US copyright law,
which is supposed to protect development and encourage it, seems to
be used to hurt it more often than not.

Bill Moran
Potential Technologies

freebsd-chat@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-chat-unsubscribe@freebsd.org"