Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!ames!pasteur!agate!eos!labrea!decwrl!hplabs!hp-pcd!uoregon!jqj
From: jqj@uoregon.uoregon.edu (JQ Johnson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Open Software Foundation (actually, AT&T licenses)
Keywords: osf
Message-ID: <2042@uoregon.uoregon.edu>
Date: 21 May 88 14:16:39 GMT
References: <5412@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU> <3166@pdn.UUCP> <3c2a41f6.13422@apollo.uucp> <5463@bloom-beacon.MIT.EDU>
Reply-To: jqj@drizzle.UUCP (JQ Johnson)
Organization: University of Oregon, Computer Science, Eugene OR
Lines: 13

The discussion seems to have shifted from OSF to SysV R3 licenses.

One of the major complaints I heard from people at both DEC and HP last
year was that AT&T was requiring SVID compliance (including full
compliance with the SV test suite even though the suite had not been
fully released at the time) for *any* code that made use of or was
derived from any part of the Sys V sources.  HP in particular is in the
business of making more than workstations; I can imagine how they might
want to incorporate awk or streams or something in rom in a lab device,
pay the U..X license fee for the device, but not incorporate *all* of
SysVR3 in the device.

Can anyone report on whether this is still a sticking point for potential
AT&T licensees?