Full Steam Ahead with License

[Tim Shoppa]

> Another suggestion - keep a list of the licencees on the PUPS website. That
> way everyone would know who they could exchange software with. Most new
> stuff would probably end up on the site anyway, but during development
> it might be good to know.

As most all of the "new stuff" lately seems to be 2.11BSD-related,
this brings up a (probably silly) question of mine: what's the
relationship between the SCO license agreement and 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11BSD?
Will the SCO license be functionally equivalent to a WE/AT&T source
license (other than the per-machine limitations)?  In other words,
are the 2BSD distributions "SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMS" in the language
of the agreement?

Another stupid question: few of us (perhaps I'm the only one) have
CD-ROM readers/writers attached to PDP-11's.  Will those who have to
transfer the source kit through a PC-clone or other Unix workstation
have to license the intermediary machines with SCO?  In other words,
will the intermediary machines need to be registered as "DESIGNATED
CPU"s?

Tim.

Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au (8.8.5/8.8.5) id IAA07477
	for pups-liszt; Wed, 4 Mar 1998 08:10:19 +1100 (EST)
X-Authentication-Warning: minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au: major set sender to owner-pups at minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au using -f