USL v.BSDi

   
Home: Software Licenses

Articles

Copyright Issues
Open Source & Derivative Works

GPL Issues
GPL Validity
GPL Violations
WordPress & the GPL

Legal Cases
ProCD v. Zeidenberg
USL v. BSDi

Glossary

Advertising Clause
Click-Through License
Compatible Licenses
Copyleft
Derivative Works
Dual Licensing
EULA
FLOSS
FOSS
Free Software
Incompatible Licenses
OSD
OSI Certified
OSS
Permissive Licenses
Shrink Wrap License
Viral Licenses

Open Source

Licenses
   AGPL
   Apache
   Apple
   Artistic
   BSD
   CDDL
   CPL
   EPL
   GPL v2
   GPL v3
   IPL
   LGPL
   MIT
   Mozilla
   SPL
   X License
   X11 License

Organizations
   ASF
   FSF
   OSI
   SFLC

People
   Bruce Perens
   Eben Moglen
   Eric Raymond
   Lawrence Lessig
   Linus Torvalds
   Richard Stallman

Proprietary Licenses

Licenses
   Closed Source
   Freeware
   Shareware

Organizations
   BSA

Shared Source Licenses

MS Community License
MS Permissive License

Uncopyrighted

Public Domain

Further Reading

Books




 
 














































 
Software Licenses   >   Articles   >   USL v.BSDi

   
 

USL v. BSDi


This was a lawsuit brought in 1992 by UNIX System Laboratories (USL) against Berkeley Software Design and the Regents of the University of California over intellectual property rights relating to UNIX. The lawsuit eventually settled in 1993, and led to all sorts of interesting consequences for the later history of UNIX.

The eventual outcome of the lawsuit (and the resulting settlement) turned on the prior history of UNIX, so let us begin by reviewing the events leading up to the lawsuit.
  • In 1970s, AT&T's Bell Labs began releasing versions of UNIX, and distributing and licensing it in source code form.

    Because, it was not clear at the time whether computer source code could be copyrighted, AT&T generally relied upon a trade-secret theory to protect its intellectual property. Source code either did not have copyright notices added, or perhaps even had them removed (so as to bolster the claim that the source code was an unpublished trade secret). Moreover, items published in the US without a copyright notice, prior to the Copyright Act of 1976, were uncopyrighted.

  • Despite taking the position that the source code contained unpublished trade secrets, AT&T distributed and licensed the source code widely, including to many universities. Many thousands of students worked with the source, analysis and code snippets were published in text books, and a US standard (POSIX) was even created based on the programming interfaces ("API").

  • Source code licensees often developed add-on programs or modifications. AT&T made clear in their newsletter, that they claimed no copyright or ownership interest in the licensee's source code except to the extent that it contained elements of AT&T's source code.

  • One licensee of the source code was the University of California, Berkeley (UC Berkeley). Students at the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) modified and enhanced the AT&T source code, and made releases of their modified operating system. Initially, the modified operating system was only made available to other AT&T licensees (and this was done with AT&T's blessing). However in 1992, after a processing of auditing, removing, and replacing AT&T source code, CSRG believed they had developed a complete UNIX-like operating system (which they called NET-2) containing no AT&T intellectual property. NET-2 was released under the original version of the BSD License (with the advertising clause.

  • AT&T's subsiduary, UNIX System Laboratories (USL), sused Berkeley Software Design, Inc. (BSDi) and the Regents of the University of California, alleging (among other things) that NET-2 infringed the USL's copyright on UNIX and divulged USL's trade secrets in UNIX, and the claim that NET-2 "contained no AT&T licensed code" was false. Furthermore, USL asked for a preliminary injunction that would bar the distribution of the NET-2 software until the case was resolved.

  • The arguments made by the Regents of the University California made against the preliminary injunction relied on whether AT&T had valid copyrights on older versions of UNIX, whether it had abandoned copyrights on additional parts of UNIX (for example by allowing text books to be published, and whether certain code was mandated by standards set by outside organizations such as POSIX (which AT&T endorsed) meaning that such code could no longer be considered to be a creative work. In summary, the university claimed that they had removed all the validly copyrighted AT&T UNIX code, but even if they had missed AT&T code, these amount to such as a small fraction of NET-2 that NET-2 could not be legally considered a derived work.

  • The University also filed a separate lawsuit against USL, alleging that USL had violated its license to BSD code written at UC Berkeley. AT&T had in fact signed an express license agreement with the University, and one of the requirements of this was AT&T's compliance with the advertising clause of the BSD license. However, USL had made UNIX releases prior to the lawsuit that did not contain the required copyright notices and author acknowledgements.

  • The case settled in 1994, by which point the judge refused to grant USL a preliminary injunction and the UNIX intellectual property had been purchased by Novell.

  • The terms of settlement were keep secret at the time, but in 2004, they were eventually published online. After the lawsuit, NET-2 was replaced by 4.4BSD-lite, which was similar but not identical to NET-2 (out of 18,000 files, only 3 files were removed, and 70 files modified to show USL copyright notices), and which both BSDi and AT&T agreed did not contain any disputed files.
Related Links Related Pages
   
Discuss USL v.BSDi
Please feel free to post your comments:

Facebook Comments:




 
   
   

 
       


Train For Linux
Online Linux Training Site. A Membership Site With A Mix Of Video And Other Training Materials. Membership Never Expires!
 
   
 
 

 
 
This site is for general information only, and represents the opinions of the authors only. This site was NOT written, NOR reviewed, NOR vetted by lawyers. The content of this site is NOT intended as, NOR should be construed as, legal or professional advice. You should consult a lawyer, if you need a legal opinion or advice on any legal matter.

Copyright © 2007-2017, Answers 2000 Limited

CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE COMES FROM AMAZON SERVICES LLC. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.
CERTAIN CONTENT THAT APPEARS ON THIS SITE,COMES FROM AMAZON EU S. r.l. THIS CONTENT IS PROVIDED 'AS IS' AND IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE OR REMOVAL AT ANY TIME.

Disclosure: Our company's websites' content (including this website's content) includes advertisements for our own company's websites, products, and services, and for other organization's websites, products, and services. In the case of links to other organization's websites, our company may receive a payment, (1) if you purchase products or services, or (2) if you sign-up for third party offers, after following links from this website. Unless specifically otherwise stated, information about other organization's products and services, is based on information provided by that organization, the product/service vendor, and/or publicly available information - and should not be taken to mean that we have used the product/service in question. Additionally, our company's websites contain some adverts which we are paid to display, but whose content is not selected by us, such as Google AdSense ads. For more detailed information, please see Advertising/Endorsements Disclosures

Our sites use cookies, some of which may already be set on your computer. Use of our site constitutes consent for this. For details, please see Privacy.

Contact Us   Privacy   Terms of Use   Advertising/Endorsements Disclosures

In Association With Amazon.com
Answers 2000 Limited is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.com.
In Association With Amazon.co.uk
Answers 2000 Limited is a participant in the Amazon EU Associates Programme, an affiliate advertising programme designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to Amazon.co.uk.
All trademarks are property of their respective owners.
All third party content and adverts are copyright of their respective owners.