Why is csh `restricted'?
grog at lemis.com
Tue Jan 5 16:12:41 AEST 1999
On Monday, 4 January 1999 at 21:57:01 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
>> From: Warren Toomey <wkt at henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
>> What else in the original 2bsd is contaminated?
> Anything that I (or other contributors) didn't write ourselves.
> A good case can be made that stuff ported from 4.4-Lite is not
> contaminated (because 4.4-Lite had the legal blessings of AT&T)
> but I was told at one time anything based on the Net-2 stuff could be
> (is?) contaminated.
There has been a lot of confusion on this point. Well, maybe
``disagreement'' would be a better word. Obviously Net-2 contained
almost only stuff written by contributors, though there was, indeed,
some code which had obviously grown out of Seventh Edition code. I
think somebody mentioned something like 13 files in the context of the
lawsuit. I took a look at one (kern_clock.c?), and confirmed that
yes, it looked as if it was derived rather than written from scratch.
On the other hand, there was nothing which AT&T (or the opponent of
the week) could claim to be trade secrets. And IMO none of this could
have been construed to mean that people couldn't use the sources which
were indisputably completely written by UCB and its contributors.
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key
Received: (from major at localhost)
by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id RAA08605
for pups-liszt; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 17:54:25 +1100 (EST)
More information about the TUHS