From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: migieger@bawue.de (Michael Giegerich)
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 07:57:51 +0530
Subject: [pups] Re: Condition of 2BSD
In-Reply-To: <20030320000803.GD47194@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <200303191740.h2JHeUf02457@moe.2bsd.com> <20030320000803.GD47194@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030320022751.GA212@luva.home>

On Thu, Mar 20, 2003 at 10:38:03AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> On Wednesday, 19 March 2003 at  9:40:30 -0800, Steven M. Schultz wrote:
...
> > 	But is 2BSD free?   That I don't know.  It is more free than it was
> > 	a long time ago but
> 
> After Caldera released the Ancient UNIX license last January, 2BSD
> must be free, unless I'm missing something.

IMHO Caldera/SCO could only release the AT&T part
of xBSD. To release xBSD completely the UCB would
have to do this formally...

Caveats: haven't Caldera/SCO pulled back this re-
lease (IIRC I saw something like that when I vi-
sited their web site; reason whatever "abuse").

Also these releases from them used to be for per-
sonal, education/research use and thus would re-
strict the scope of their release. At least this
was the case when you had still to apply in wri-
ting to SCO.

I guess UCB wouldn't like again to test the current
status quo at court...

...
> > 	Does the current state of the Caldera/SCO/whatever license override
> > 	any existing licenses?   THAT I do not know.
> 
> My understanding (and I'm pretty sure it's correct) is that it
> replaces the old AT&T license for the specified products, including
> all AT&T precursors of [1-4]BSD.