sysred@psuvax.UUCP (08/01/83)
The following are responses received to a request for information about univsersities which have signed the most recent UCBerkeley license agreements (4.2BSD and 2.9BSD). I'm still interested in hearing positive responses from universities which have signed the agreements without change; I need this as ammunition to convince PSU's lawyers to sign the agreements. Thanks to all who responded. - Ralph Droms Computer Science Department The Pennsylvania State University Responses (should be readable with "mail -f"): ********************************************************************** >From burdvax!puder Tue Jul 12 11:00:15 1983 To: psuvax!sysred Subject: Re: Limitation of Liability Is the new paragraph any different from the 4.1 agreement? If it is the same, you can say that hundreds of universities have already agreed to it. Here is what my (4.1bsd; 1982 August 16) copy says in paragraph 11: 11. Limitation of Liability. LICENSEE agrees to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless The Regents of the University of California, its successors, agents, officers, and employees, either in their individual capacities or by reason of their relationship to the Regents of the University of California, with respect to any expense, claim, liability, loss or damage (including any incidental or consequential damages) either direct or indirect, whether incurred, made or suffered by LICENSEE or any of its sublicensees or by other third parties, in connection with or in any way arising out of the furnishing, sublicensing, performance or use of the Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution in connection with this Agreement. LICENSEE's obligations under this paragraph include, but are not limited to, its obligation to indemnify, defend, and hold the Regents of the University of California, its agents, officers, and employees harmless in the case of any claim of copyright, trade secret, or patent infringement based in any manner in LICENSEE's use or sublicensing of the Fourth Berkeley Software Distribution. If the new one is different, what did they change? Karl Puder burdvax!puder SDC-aBC, R & D Paoli, Pa. (215)648-7555 >From burdvax!presby!seismo!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!bob Sat Jul 16 01:07:24 1983 Date: Fri Jul 15 09:12:05 1983 From: seismo!philabs!cmcl2!lanl-a!unm-ivax!bob Subject: 4.2 and 2.9 license agreements Posted-Date: Fri Jul 15 09:12:05 1983 Message-Id: <8307152232.AA16012@SEISMO.ARPA> Received: by SEISMO.ARPA (3.342/3.21) id AA16012; 15 Jul 83 18:32:07 EDT (Fri) To: lanl-a!cmcl2!philabs!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred Our lawyers here are also having problems with the license agreements. We signed one that is very similar for getting the 4.1 update tape about a month ago, but when they did they tried adding an addendum saying: 10. Patent and Copyright Indemnity. LICENSOR (University of California) will defend the LICENSEE (University of New Mexico) against a claoim that a program supplied hereunder infringes a U.S. patent or copyright, LICENSOR will pay the resulting cost and damage awards provided that: a. The LICENSEE probmptly notifies LICENSOR in writing of the claim; and b. LICENSOR has sole control of the defense and all related settlement negotiations. That didn't fly with UCB and so they ended up signing and putting in an addendum saying something like: To the extent of New Mexico Law. That went through. However, as I'm sure you've seen, it says in the 4.2 paperwork: Please note that if you modify the Berkeley License Agreement, you may experience a delay of three months or more before receiving an acceptance or denial of the changes. ucbvax!lbl-csam!lanl-a!unm-ivax!bob (505) 277-6131 Please post any info you find about the situation. >From allegra!eagle!mit-vax!mp Sun Jul 17 01:54:31 1983 To: eagle!allegra!psuvax!sysred Subject: retransmission From eagle!allegra!psuvax!MAILER-DAEMON Sat Jul 16 18:19:30 1983 To: allegra!eagle!mit-vax!mp Subject: Unable to deliver mail ----- Transcript of session follows ----- ----- Unsent message follows ----- To: eagle!allegra!psuvax!droms I believe the MIT lawyers got that clause struck out when they signed the 4bsd license. I don't know what they're planning to do about the 4.2bsd license. >From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!mogul%Shasta@SU-Score Sun Jul 17 02:47:34 1983 Date: Friday, 15 Jul 1983 11:17-PDT From: Jeff Mogul <seismo!ucbvax!mogul%Shasta@SU-Score> Subject: Re: New Berkeley agreements Posted-Date: Friday, 15 Jul 1983 11:17-PDT Message-Id: <8307151810.AA24961@UCBVAX.ARPA> Received: by HP-VENUS via UUCP; 15 Jul 1983 19:39:58-PDT (Fri) Received: from SU-SCORE.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.347/3.35) id AA24961; Fri, 15 Jul 83 11:10:18 PDT Received: from Shasta by Score with Pup; Fri 15 Jul 83 11:14:25-PDT Received: by SEISMO.ARPA (3.342/3.21) id AA01678; 17 Jul 83 00:19:15 EDT (Sun) To: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@BERKELEY Via: uucp host ucbvax; 15 Jul 1983 11:10:18-??? (Fri) In-Reply-To: Your message of 11 Jul 83 12:46:30-PDT (Mon). I've been working on getting the Stanford University Counsel to sign the 4.2BSD license. They were willing to sign the previous (4.1BSD or perhaps 4BSD?) license, which is only subtly different. I have a copy of a memo from one of the lawyers to our Purchasing Dept., which indicates that he didn't particulary like the indemnification clause (para. 11), but hadn't been able to get Berkeley to accept changes in the past, so he gave in and approved it. I would appreciate it if you would NOT contact Stanford for a few weeks, to give them a chance to work on our license - I want to keep them on my side, and I suppose they might not appreciate random inquiries. If they don't approve the license, I'm likely to make this known to the net, since it would set a bad precedent -- but I'm sure they will approve, if slowly. I have not heard of any legal actions between universities and UCB (over Unix software), but I am not an expert on this. The distribution coordinator at UCB would probably tell you if there had been any. -Jeff >From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID Mon Jul 18 17:03:09 1983 Date: Sat 16 Jul 83 10:19:44-PDT From: The Mailer Daemon <seismo!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID> Subject: Message of 15-Jul-83 04:51:58 Posted-Date: Sat 16 Jul 83 10:19:44-PDT Message-Id: <8307161719.AA15513@UCBVAX.ARPA> Received: by HP-VENUS via UUCP; 16 Jul 1983 19:36:12-PDT (Sat) Received: from USC-ISID.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.347/3.35) id AA15513; Sat, 16 Jul 83 10:19:52 PDT Received: by SEISMO.ARPA (3.342/3.21) id AA02699; 17 Jul 83 01:35:13 EDT (Sun) To: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@BERKELEY Via: uucp host ucbvax; 16 Jul 1983 10:19:52-??? (Sat) Message undelivered after 1 day -- will try for another 2 days: ucl-unix-wizards@UCL-CS.ARPA: Cannot connect to host. ------------ Received: FROM BRL-VGR BY USC-ISID.ARPA WITH TCP ; 15 Jul 83 04:52:02 PDT Received: From Sri-Unix.ARPA by BRL-VGR via smtp; 15 Jul 83 7:22 EDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 15 Jul 83 4:12-PDT Date: 11 Jul 83 12:46:30-PDT (Mon) To: Unix-Wizards@brl-vgr From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@ucb-vax Subject: New Berkeley agreements Article-I.D.: psuvax.173 ------- >From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID Mon Jul 18 20:13:12 1983 Date: Sun 17 Jul 83 06:35:25-PDT From: The Mailer Daemon <seismo!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID> Subject: Message of 15-Jul-83 04:51:58 Posted-Date: Sun 17 Jul 83 06:35:25-PDT Message-Id: <8307171336.AA06582@UCBVAX.ARPA> Received: by HP-VENUS via UUCP; 17 Jul 1983 08:28:01-PDT (Sun) Received: from USC-ISID.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.347/3.35) id AA06582; Sun, 17 Jul 83 06:36:22 PDT Received: by SEISMO.ARPA (3.342/3.21) id AA11024; 17 Jul 83 21:44:31 EDT (Sun) To: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@BERKELEY Via: uucp host ucbvax; 17 Jul 1983 06:36:22-??? (Sun) Message undelivered after 2 days -- will try for another 1 day: ucl-unix-wizards@UCL-CS.ARPA: Cannot connect to host. ------------ Received: FROM BRL-VGR BY USC-ISID.ARPA WITH TCP ; 15 Jul 83 04:52:02 PDT Received: From Sri-Unix.ARPA by BRL-VGR via smtp; 15 Jul 83 7:22 EDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 15 Jul 83 4:12-PDT Date: 11 Jul 83 12:46:30-PDT (Mon) To: Unix-Wizards@brl-vgr From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@ucb-vax Subject: New Berkeley agreements Article-I.D.: psuvax.173 ------- >From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID Tue Jul 19 02:51:20 1983 Date: Mon 18 Jul 83 06:34:30-PDT From: The Mailer Daemon <seismo!ucbvax!Mailer@USC-ISID> Subject: Message of 15-Jul-83 04:51:58 Posted-Date: Mon 18 Jul 83 06:34:30-PDT Message-Id: <8307181336.AA19899@UCBVAX.ARPA> Received: by HP-VENUS via UUCP; 18 Jul 1983 08:28:00-PDT (Mon) Received: from USC-ISID.ARPA by UCBVAX.ARPA (3.347/3.35) id AA19899; Mon, 18 Jul 83 06:36:31 PDT Received: by SEISMO.ARPA (3.342/3.21) id AA14807; 18 Jul 83 21:33:32 EDT (Mon) To: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@BERKELEY Via: uucp host ucbvax; 18 Jul 1983 06:36:31-??? (Mon) Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days: ucl-unix-wizards@UCL-CS.ARPA: Cannot connect to host. ------------ Received: FROM BRL-VGR BY USC-ISID.ARPA WITH TCP ; 15 Jul 83 04:52:02 PDT Received: From Sri-Unix.ARPA by BRL-VGR via smtp; 15 Jul 83 7:22 EDT Received: from Usenet.uucp by SRI-Unix.uucp with rs232; 15 Jul 83 4:12-PDT Date: 11 Jul 83 12:46:30-PDT (Mon) To: Unix-Wizards@brl-vgr From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred@ucb-vax Subject: New Berkeley agreements Article-I.D.: psuvax.173 I recently received the new Berkeley agreements for 2.9BSD and 4.2BSD. The University lawyers are objecting to the "Limitation of Liability Clause" (clause 7 in the 2.9BSD agreement and clause 11 in the 4.2BSD agreement). In order to persuade the lawyers to allow the University to sign the agreement, I need some additional information: 1. Pointers to Universities which have already signed the agreements as written. 2. Information about any previous legal actions which might have fallen under these clauses. Any other information I might be able to use to show that the University may safely sign these agreements would be greatly appreciated. -- - Ralph Droms ------- >From allegra!gatech!wan Tue Jul 19 22:04:33 1983 To: allegra!psuvax!sysred Subject: Re: New Berkeley agreements Georgia Tech has had problems with the Berkeley licenses also. When we were applying for 4.1bsd, I think that Berkeley finally agreed to the phrasing "not liable to the extent allowable under Georgia law", or something like that. We are now going through the same thing with 4.2bsd; I don't know how long we will have to wait for it (or if we are ever going to get it). If you want more insight into what we had to go through or what we will be going through, you can write to allegra!gatech!perry (Perry Flinn); he is our software manager here at the School of Information and Computer Science, and has had to deal with UNIX licensing from the beginning. "Peter N. Wan" System Support Specialist II, School of ICS Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia 30332 Phone : (404) 894-3658 UUCP : ...!{allegra,sb1}!gatech!wan or ...!duke!mcnc!msdc!gatech!wan ARPA : wan.gatech@Udel-Relay CSNET : wan@gatech -- - Ralph Droms