Why is csh `restricted'?

Steven M. Schultz sms at moe.2bsd.com
Tue Jan 5 16:45:35 AEST 1999

Greg -

> From: Greg Lehey <grog at lemis.com>
> There has been a lot of confusion on this point.  Well, maybe
> ``disagreement'' would be a better word.  Obviously Net-2 contained

	Hmmm, I think `confusion' is a better fit.  Of course said confusion
	does lead to disagreement eventually ;)

> think somebody mentioned something like 13 files in the context of the

	I'd heard it was 7 files at one time, then 11.  It's a fairly
	small number _but_ the exact list was never disclosed (part of the
	settlement I understand).  Without a list of files the fear (at the
	time) was that "the enemy" could come after you claiming derivation
	of some work from the forbidden files.  Since you didn't know what
	files those were it was hard (impossible) to know what you could or
	couldn't use.

> 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.

	I'm not a lawyer (and don't even play one on the Net;))...  That's
	how you and I (nonlawyer types) think.  The sentiment at the time
	was that up until 4.4-Lite was declared "uncontaminated" there was
	a danger of being legally targeted for using Net-1 and Net-2.

	The point is moot now today because all manner of alternatives
	(FreeBSD for example) exist.  That ready availability may have been 
	a big factor in SCO's allowing inexpensive access to the "original" 
	sources (albeit under 'license' rather than "freely available").


Received: (from major at localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id SAA08664
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 5 Jan 1999 18:17:15 +1100 (EST)

More information about the TUHS mailing list