DCorbit@connx.com ("Dann Corbit") writes:
>> That's true of just about any software license.
>
> Where is the risk with a Berkeley style license?
... That AT&T might sue you for infringing on their UNIX code.
That this actually happened (albeit a long, long time ago) proves that
it is a risk that has been "observed in the wild," as opposed to
merely in peoples fevered imaginations.
Supposing the AT&T situation had been resolved more quickly, way back
when, then the population that were looking for a "free Unix" might
well have stampeded to *BSD instead of Linux.
Suppose then, that "FrobozzBSD" turned out to be "The Bees' Knees" in
public interest instead of Linux, and [IBM/SGI] had then dropped out
of Project Monterrey and contributed SMP/FileSystem code to
FrobozzBSD.
The scenario would be much the same as what we have recently seen,
albeit with different licenses involved.
If IBM gave code to FreeBSD that infringed on what SCO perceived as
"their rights," then much the same set of lawsuits would arise, for
much the same reasons.
When AT&T filed suit, it wasn't over which free software licenses were
being used. When SCO filed suit, it wasn't over free software
licenses.
If someone contributed code to PostgreSQL that infringed on some
aspect of the "intellectual property" of
Oracle/Microsoft/Sybase/Whomever, it would be totally irrelevant what
license PostgreSQL uses.
--
select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'libertyrms.info';
<http://dev6.int.libertyrms.com/>
Christopher Browne
(416) 646 3304 x124 (land)