Re: Will Alan Baker finally admit he's wrong?


"Steve Carroll" <noone@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:noone-594DC9.12114507092007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1189183352.169380.150940@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Sep 7, 3:06 am, Alan Baker <alangba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Honestly, if this doesn't convince him, what will?

This is an excerpt from the ruling in the USL (AT&T) vs BSDI (the Univ.
of California spin-off):

BSDI has nothing to do with Sun Microsystems or your false claim that
Sun bought their OS and then "just developed it" like Apple did.

"Berkeley, a recipient of 32V source code, exercised its
contractual right to derivative 32V to the hilt. It began to
create its own embellishments and additions, which it called
Berkeley Software Distributions ("BSD") releases, and distributed
them via the Regents' Computer Sciences Research Group ("CSRG").
In the early 1980s, Berkeley only distributed the releases to other
licensees (which now number in the thousands) because the releases
contained proprietary code governed by Berkeley's license with
AT&T. But demand for the releases from unlicensed users grew, so
Berkeley began distributing reacted releases with the proprietary
material allegedly removed. These releases included the operating
system at the heart of the present dispute, Net2, which Plaintiff
has alleged violates its proprietary rights in 32V."

Read that again, folks:

"In the early 1980s, Berkeley only distributed the releases to other
licensees (which now number in the thousands) because the releases
contained proprietary code governed by Berkeley's license with
AT&T."

<http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt>

Goodnight kids!

It has nothing to do with Bill Joy, BSD 4.1 in 1982, or Sun.

Edwin, you lost this one... give it up;)

I haven't lost. Alan is not only wrong, he's a bald-faced liar as well.


.

Relevant Pages