gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (01/20/87)
The real problem with the SVID compliance clause, as I understand it, is that it precludes non-SVID-compliant vendors, such as those who started with a 4.2BSD kernel, from adopting ANY part of SVR3, even in an attempt to transition to a SVID-compliant system. This includes such important items as STREAMS and RFS. Surely we would all be better off if such facilities could be picked up while the vendors worked to move their systems into SVID and/or POSIX compliance.
Robert_Toxen@harvard.HARVARD.EDU (01/27/87)
> From: Doug Gwyn <gwyn@brl-smoke.arpa> > Subject: Re: SVR3 SVID compliance clause > > The real problem with the SVID compliance clause, as I understand it, > is that it precludes non-SVID-compliant vendors, such as those who > started with a 4.2BSD kernel, from adopting ANY part of SVR3, even in > an attempt to transition to a SVID-compliant system. This includes > such important items as STREAMS and RFS. Surely we would all be > better off if such facilities could be picked up while the vendors > worked to move their systems into SVID and/or POSIX compliance. I'm of the opinion that this section of the 5.3 license would be found invalid and unenforceable in a court of law on the basis that previous licenses and AT&T's advertising, salesmen, and past practices implied that purchasers of said previous releases would be entitled to updates for a nominal fee. Therefor this practice violates PREVIOUS licenses and purchasers would be able to answer any of AT&T's suits with a countersuit for violating the previous license agreements. I would like to see someone with the money and guts (and hopefully brains) to settle this matter. The lawyers for UC Berkeley, DEC, and Stratus (where I work) disagree with me. I think that their disagreement is more due to their lack of guts than firm legal practice (I'd like to hear what statutes or decisions they base their opinions on) and the questionable value of 5.3 anyway as well as the fact that AT&T could bury almost anyone in legal fees even if their case is invalid. In my 12 years of UN*X experience the only action I've heard of AT&T taking against anyone was to ask Internation Technical Seminars, Inc. to rename their "The UNIX Bookstore" to "The Independent UNIX Bookstore". AT&T has apparently not learned the lesson of the arab oil sheiks, Detroit auto makers, and AT&T's own monopoly of Long Distance. If you gouge people sufficiently they will stab you in the back! Of course, I'm not a lawyer and this should not be considered legal advice. Bob Toxen Stratus Computer, Marlboro, Mass. {ucbvax!ihnp4}!anvil!bob (Please use THIS address to reply.) "unix is a subset of inextinguishable" (Concept stolen from Roy Smith.)
gwyn@BRL.ARPA (01/28/87)
According to this month's UNIX Review, AT&T has extended the deadline for SVID conformity until June 1988. I think this is a wise move and hope that BSD-based vendors will now get moving in that direction.