Date: Wed, 24 Nov 1999 02:50:44 -0800 (PST) From: "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> To: root@ihack.net (Charles M. Hannum) Cc: obrien@FreeBSD.ORG, current@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: FreeBSD security auditing project. Message-ID: <199911241050.CAA45328@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> In-Reply-To: <el24secwp2i.fsf@eniwetok.ihack.net> from "Charles M. Hannum" at "Nov 23, 1999 10:23:00 pm"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > "Rodney W. Grimes" <freebsd@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net> writes: > > > It's not so much that they where ``allowed'' to do it, it is more the > > matter that they where never directly served with legal papers from USL/Novell > > to cease all use of Net/2. Nor did they ever enter into any agreement, > > that I am aware of, with respect to Net/2 code with any party other > > than UCB. > > That's half true. No letter ever received asked us to `cease all use > of Net/2'. However, as has been publically stated *numerous* times, > there does exist an agreement between NetBSD and USL stating that, > after certain Net/2 files were removed and certain others were updated > to their 4.4-Lite versions, USL would not bother us again. That agreement is different than the agreement I have before me. > > > These agreements basically say that the parties would stop all use of > > Net/2 based code and replace it with BSD4.4 Lite, [...] > > That's false. If the FreeBSD agreement is *anything* like the NetBSD > one, it covers only specific files, not the entire source tree. You can't make the claim that this is false, you have not seen the document, and you can't. I will assert my statement is true. I can't say anymore about it than that as the agreement itself says that it's contents are not to be disclosed. The agreement evedently does not look like the one that NetBSD signed. > > > One could make claim that Novell/USL seriously failed to do ``due dilegence'', > > but they where not protecting a trademark, but instead a copyright and they > > could, if they still owned the code. come along and slap NetBSD/OpenBSD > > with a pretty healthy law suite. > > That's also false. Worse, it's FUD. Agreed, given the other statements. > > Technically if I where to bring a NetBSD repository over to my box and > > then let anyone other than myself even look at it I would be in violation > > of the USL/Novell agreement due to the fact that the repository contains > > Net/2 code. :-(. > > And that's false, too. You can't know that, you don't know what my agreement says. Unless I missed it some place the ,v files of the NetBSD repository where not purged of the Net/2 code, unless this was done offline in a non-public manner. That I might not know about. Though the legal agreement between NetBSD and USL/Novell may have only required NetBSD to purge certain files, my agreement is very explicit about ALL of Net/2. > Please check your facts before spewing about legal matters. My facts on the legal points of this issue are probably at least an order of magnitude more correct than yours. NetBSD wouldn't have even seen something as simple as what it did get from USL had I not spent a month of my time working with Novel legal to have something palatible we (WC and myself) could agree to. -- Rod Grimes - KD7CAX @ CN85sl - (RWG25) rgrimes@gndrsh.dnsmgr.net To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-current" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199911241050.CAA45328>