Talk:UNIX System Laboratories, Inc. v. Berkeley Software Design, Inc.
|WikiProject Law||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
This article seems incomplete: it only goes to "pretrial"? glasperlenspiel 23:31, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)
This article is incomplete. I used the court documents as sources, and stopped writing when I reached a point in the timeline of the case where documents were not available. I've tried to locate other sources, and I found many conflicting accounts of the case, including some of the events I've already written about.
I'd like to ask members of the *BSD projects (and at least one Apple employee I know of) to send me an account of what happened, and then try to sort out the details from the first-hand participants. They might not be allowed to talk about the case though.
I'm troubled that the information here might not be accurate much more than I am about the article being incomplete. jhf
The case settlement document has become available, and Groklaw is confirming its authenticity. This article could be finished and much improved, using that (or without it!) I've added this page to Pages needing attention. - jhf 05:57, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Why does the article think that the settlement in Groklaw would not be genuine? No one has expressed that it would not be, so I think we could remo the doubts. Jannex 12:48, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The introduction to the article is either confusing or in error, I don't know which: it states that NET-2 was released in 1991, and that BSDi got ahold of it, and ported it to the x86 architecture, but that AT&T sued BSDi in 1990 --- a year before the code was released? Is there a typo somewhere, or did part of the story get edited out unnecessarily? - Jon Lasser 6 Oct 2005
I seem to remember that the big item that forced the settlement involved the BSD license, which essentially stated that the material was copyright, but freely usable as long as the copyright notice was retained and the university's name not used for advertising. Problem is, USL had stolen documentation from BSD and removed the copyright. The university threatened to counter sue, with a large mountain of evidence availble publicly on their side against USL's inability or unwilingness to actually show any infringing lines of code. It would be nice to have mention of this in the article, assuming I remember correctly. --ssd 19:21, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't the first paragraph refer to SCO v. Novell instead of SCO v. IBM, since the question who owns the unix copyright is fought over in SCO V. Novell. --Txwikinger 17:49, 17 September 2007 (UTC)