BSD lawsuit question.
sl...@cc.usu.edu
869483 Bennett Brendt
First I wanted to apologize for the previous post. I tried to post
from home using a modem and it freaked out on me and posted a blank
input. Sorry.
I am getting a new computer system and planned to put FreeBSD on it
when it arrived. However, a friend has told me that all the BSDs
will be removed from the FTP sites soon do to the lawsuit agreement
(very soon he says).
If this is so I need to get the binaries and sources (I want them too)
now, which causes me a problem since I have no where to store all of
it. If FreeBSD 2.0s release is imminent then I might wait even though
I wanted to mess with it in the summer while I have more time. I am
having a hard time making a decision about what to do. If I wait, no
FreeBSD available; if I don't wait, there is no where to store it and
I may have to upgrade very soon.
It would really help if someone could say what the relative time
tables for these things happening might be. I have already read
the FAQ that is on ftp.cdrom.com.
Thanks for your time,
Brendt Bennett
sl...@cache.declab.usu.edu
Michael L. VanLoon
>I am getting a new computer system and planned to put FreeBSD on it
>when it arrived. However, a friend has told me that all the BSDs
>will be removed from the FTP sites soon do to the lawsuit agreement
>(very soon he says).
No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
This is an important distinction. It must be removed by July 31st.
NetBSD-1.0, which is based on 4.4BSD-lite, and which is completely
free of legal encumberance by legal agreement with USL, should be out
end of July/beginning of August. Because NetBSD-1.0 is based on
4.4-lite (like FreeBSD-2.0 will be when it finally comes out, probably
in several months), it is under no obligation to be removed.
You may run what you choose, since FreeBSD-1.1.5 will be around for a
few more days, yet. But, please be aware that "BSD", in general,
means a lot of different operating systems. And, that there is an
unencumbered system (NetBSD-1.0) on the verge of release.
--
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Michael L. VanLoon Iowa State University Computation Center
mich...@iastate.edu Project Vincent Systems Staff
Free your mind and your machine -- NetBSD free Un*x for PC/Mac/Amiga/etc.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Charles M. Hannum
In article <1994Jul24.2...@cc.usu.edu>
sl...@avon.declab.usu.edu (869483 Bennett Brendt) writes:
However, a friend has told me that all the BSDs will be removed
from the FTP sites soon do to the lawsuit agreement (very soon he
says).
That is untrue.
--
- Charles Hannum
NetBSD group
Working ports: i386, hp300, amiga, sun4c, mac68k, pc532, da30.
In progress: sun3, pmax, vax, sun4m.
John Dyson
>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
>This is an important distinction. It must be removed by July 31st.
with authority -- but I was under the impression that only parties to the
agreements needed to remove the copies of FreeBSD V1.X. It will probably
be available from other ftp sites. I don't see anywhere that an implicit
agreement is made by accepting a copy of FreeBSD -- but I am not a legal
eagle myself (I just program kernel enhancements, where I am safe :-)).
John
dy...@implode.root.com
Peter da Silva
869483 Bennett Brendt <sl...@avon.declab.usu.edu> wrote:
>If this is so I need to get the binaries and sources (I want them too)
>now,
Yes, for FreeBSD. NetBSD is already USL-safe, but isn't quite as
painless an install (friend of mine just came by crowing about how
easy the FreeBSD install is. Smirk), it's more of a leading-edge hack
till you drop sorta thing (way cool, but you're expected to know what
you're doing).
>which causes me a problem since I have no where to store all of
>it.
Floppies. You'll want a set of floppies anyway so you can recover from
a bad system failure.
Richard Tobin
>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
No, the FreeBSD will have to remove all their copies of FreeBSD,
because they have agreed with USL to do so. No-one who hasn't made
such an agreement has to, but some people might do so out of fear of a
lawsuit from USL.
Nor is FreeBSD (or NetBSD, or 386BSD, or Net/2) "legally encumbered".
There was no legal decision in the USL/BSD case, just an agreement
between the parties.
I'm sorry to have to be so persistent about this, but I don't want
people thinking that USL won their case either legally or morally.
-- Richard
--
Richard Tobin, HCRC, Edinburgh University R.T...@ed.ac.uk
Ooooh! I didn't know we had a king. I thought we were an
autonomous collective.
Michael L. VanLoon
>In article <michaelv....@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> mich...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
>No, the FreeBSD will have to remove all their copies of FreeBSD,
>because they have agreed with USL to do so. No-one who hasn't made
>such an agreement has to, but some people might do so out of fear of a
>lawsuit from USL.
[...]
>I'm sorry to have to be so persistent about this, but I don't want
>people thinking that USL won their case either legally or morally.
It's an important clarifying point. Thanks for making it.
Warner Losh
>Michael L. VanLoon <mich...@iastate.edu> writes:
>
>>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
>>This is an important distinction. It must be removed by July 31st.
>
>Now, I am not a *direct* party any of the agreements, so I am not speaking
>with authority -- but I was under the impression that only parties to the
>agreements needed to remove the copies of FreeBSD V1.X.
The current plan, as far as I can tell, is for Walnut Creek CD to stop
distributing FreeBSD on that date, but that mirror sites, such as
gatekeeper.dec.com will still have the release available. The
discussions about the agreement I saw indicated that this issue was
raised by the FreeBSD folks at the time and USL said that was cool.
In fact, people have gone to great lengths to make sure there are
mirror sites setup all over the world, so that when July 31 rolls
around, people can still get copies of FreeBSD.
Warner
--
Warner Losh i...@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder
"... but I can't promote you to "Prima Donna" unless you demonstrate a few
more serious personality disorders"
Nate Williams
Richard Tobin <ric...@cogsci.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>In article <michaelv....@ponderous.cc.iastate.edu> mich...@iastate.edu (Michael L. VanLoon) writes:
>>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
>
>No, the FreeBSD will have to remove all their copies of FreeBSD,
>because they have agreed with USL to do so. No-one who hasn't made
>such an agreement has to, but some people might do so out of fear of a
>lawsuit from USL.
Richard hit the nail on the head. No-one who has not made an agreement
with USL must remove their copy of FreeBSD from the sites. However,
FreeBSD as an entity is neither encouraging nor discouraging sites to
delete FreeBSD 1.x, though we have made an agreement to do so.
I know of sites outside of the U.S. who are NOT going to delete their
copies of 1.X since they still have Net/2. They have not been
approached by USL, so why delete something they have no reason to?
Nate
--
na...@bsd.coe.montana.edu | FreeBSD core member and all around tech.
na...@cs.montana.edu | weenie.
work #: (406) 994-4836 |
home #: (406) 586-0579 | Available for contract/otherwise work.
Paul
>>No, all copies of *FreeBSD* will have to be removed, because FreeBSD
>>1.x is based on the BNR2/4.3BSD code, which is legally encumbered.
>
>No, the FreeBSD will have to remove all their copies of FreeBSD,
>because they have agreed with USL to do so. No-one who hasn't made
Not really true. Walnut Creek must remove all versions of FreeBSD
based on Net/2 but no-one else has to. The core group is sincerely
hoping that most ftp sites will NOT remove FreeBSD since there's
no legal obligation on anyone besides Walnut Creek (and on or two
others who signed USL agreements) to do so.
Of course, many ftp sites may decide to delete the code anyway just to be
on the safe side but there's really no need to do so. About the worst that
can happen is you'll get a letter from USL threatening you at which point
it probably would be prudent to delete it but otherwise there's no
problem with distributing it.
FreeBSD is a OS not a legal entity and therefore has not had any legal
dealings with anyone. Walnut Creek, a CDROM supplier, is a company and is
free to sign any deals with whoever it wishes to. What WC does has no
effect on enyone else.
--
Paul Richards, FreeBSD core team member.
Intelligent Systems Laboratory, ELSYM ,University of Wales, College Cardiff
Internet: pa...@isl.cf.ac.uk, JANET(UK): RICHA...@CARDIFF.AC.UK
Richard Tobin
>>No, the FreeBSD will have to remove all their copies of FreeBSD,
>FreeBSD is a OS not a legal entity
Right, I actually meant to type "the FreeBSD core team will have to
remove...". If in fact the agreement is between USL and Walnut Creek,
rather than the FreeBSD core team, then so much the better!