Unversities objecting to signing new UCBerkeley agreements
sysred at psuvax.UUCP
sysred at psuvax.UUCP
Tue Aug 2 00:08:26 AEST 1983
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 at 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 at SU-Score Sun Jul 17 02:47:34 1983
Date: Friday, 15 Jul 1983 11:17-PDT
From: Jeff Mogul <seismo!ucbvax!mogul%Shasta at SU-Score>
Subject: Re: New Berkeley agreements
Posted-Date: Friday, 15 Jul 1983 11:17-PDT
Message-Id: <8307151810.AA24961 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at brl-vgr
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred at ucb-vax
Subject: New Berkeley agreements
Article-I.D.: psuvax.173
-------
>From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!Mailer at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at 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 at brl-vgr
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred at ucb-vax
Subject: New Berkeley agreements
Article-I.D.: psuvax.173
-------
>From burdvax!presby!seismo!hao!hplabs!ucbvax!Mailer at 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 at 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 at 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 at BERKELEY
Via: uucp host ucbvax; 18 Jul 1983 06:36:31-??? (Mon)
Message undeliverable and dequeued after 3 days:
ucl-unix-wizards at 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 at brl-vgr
From: hplabs!hao!seismo!presby!burdvax!psuvax!sysred at 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 at Udel-Relay
CSNET : wan at gatech
--
- Ralph Droms
More information about the Comp.unix.wizards
mailing list