Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!henry
From: henry@utzoo.UUCP (Henry Spencer)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions
Subject: Re: Remote File Sharing (RFS) - SVR
Message-ID: <7533@utzoo.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 16-Jan-87 17:08:27 EST
Article-I.D.: utzoo.7533
Posted: Fri Jan 16 17:08:27 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 16-Jan-87 17:08:27 EST
References: <7478@utzoo.UUCP>, <58900008@gorgo.UUCP>
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
Lines: 19

> In response to henry@utzoo.UUCP in comp.unix.questions:
> >Unfortunately, licensing SVR3 is not something that can be taken for granted,
> >since the license contains some troublesome clauses about mandatory SVID
> >compliance that have made a lot of vendors think twice about it.
> 
>  This is *NOT* unfortunate. Previous ports of System V UNIX by multiple vendors
> produced a hodge-podge of systems that were only marginally compatible...

Please read the original sentence again:  the part being referred to as
"unfortunate" (in the context of the original discussion) is that lack of
SVR3 licensing.  The SVID compliance requirement may be a good idea, although
much would depend on exactly how AT&T has worded it, and their demonstrated
incompetence is such that they've probably botched it.

It doesn't matter how good an idea it would be for everybody to be strictly
SVID compliant if nobody is willing to sign a licence that requires this.
-- 
Legalize			Henry Spencer @ U of Toronto Zoology
freedom!			{allegra,ihnp4,decvax,pyramid}!utzoo!henry