Unix optimized for SPARC? (really just more OSF babble)

[Richard Wood]

> It seems to me that the vendors in OSF could freeze at their current
> level of AT&T license (eg. SysVR3.1) and proceed to develop whatever
> they wanted from there using as much or as little of the original
> source as pleased them. My guess is that the licensing and royalties
> would remain the same indefinitely, which I infer was acceptable at
> some point. The only possible loser in that game would be new
> organizations who can no longer purchase older AT&T source licenses
> and find current ones somehow unpalatable (or inappropriate.)

Barry - 

You've got it almost completely right.  The problem with using a base level of AT&T SysVr3 is that the licensing restrictions are not "in perpetuity".  In other words, AT&T reserves the right to renegotiate the license, or even revoke it.  I believe they may do this at any time, although it may only be at renewal periods.  By using a base level of SysVr2, the irrevokable license that IBM managed to negotiate will always apply.  AT&T can't renege, assuming that they would want to.  This obviously makes it a









 much more palatable base from which to develope.

OSF can then do whatever they please with "OSFix" - neither AT&T nor IBM have any claims over it.  One of the implicit terms that the sponsors agreed to was that once a "technology" has been "donated", the T&Cs cannot be revoked.  So IBM has no more authority than any other member over what OSF does to (what used to be) AIX.

I see your point about the "possible loser".  But then, this problem currently exists with BSD distributions.  How is it handled there?  Can companies still get 32V or SysVr2 source licenses?

The only real losing point would be if the price for a new source license from AT&T went sky high or became unavailable.  OSF has committed to keeping their relicensing terms agreeable (remember: they are non-profit);  that leaves the ball in AT&T's court.

It should be pointed out that AT&T probably couldn't apply different source costs to OSFix customers than their own; so they can't hurt OSF customers without cutting their own throat.

NOTE that I do not believe that AT&T would do any of these things;  companies do not do nasty things gratuitously.  However, it looks like OSF and those "millions of lawyers" have arranged things so that AT&T's best and/or legal interests never conflict with OSF's.  Which is exactly what the lawyers were hired to do, I suppose.
-- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       It should go without saying that I'm not
                                  speaking as an official representative of DEC
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Wood ! Software Services, San Francisco ! Digital Equipment Corporation