Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site mtxinu.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!lll-crg!lll-lcc!unisoft!mtxinu!ed
From: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Extended file system on UNIX 4.2/4.3 BSD
Message-ID: <501@mtxinu.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 6-Jan-86 16:20:32 EST
Article-I.D.: mtxinu.501
Posted: Mon Jan  6 16:20:32 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 8-Jan-86 07:36:40 EST
References: <910@brl-tgr.ARPA> <187@isieng.UUCP> <161@nyit.UUCP>
Reply-To: ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould)
Organization: mt Xinu, Berkeley, CA
Lines: 24

In article <161@nyit.UUCP> rick@nyit.UUCP (Rick Ace) writes:
>
>I'm not sure if you'd *want* to buy it.  Our site (NYIT) tried to purchase
>the NFS source from Sun under an educational license agreement.  Sun
>sent us licensing paperwork for the NFS software.  Among other things,
>we were asked to supply the names of five people who would be working
>with the NFS software, along with their signatures, home addresses, and
>(dig dis) Social Security numbers.  Real fast, I got on the blower to
>our counsel, who found the request to be extraordinary and somewhat
>suspicious; he advised us not to comply.

When we had to sign a similar agreement with Sun, some of us (myself
included) refused to give our SSNs.  Sun said that it was OK.
(Note that it's *illegal* even to ask for a SSN in this context without
a disclaimer that the SSN is not required.)  The home address part was
suspicious but not enough to bother us;  asking who would be working on the
code seemed reasonable given that they (Sun) wanted more *real*
protection than AT&T gets from their trade secret license.

-- 
Ed Gould                    mt Xinu, 2910 Seventh St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146

"A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."