Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!gatech!uflorida!umd5!decuac!felix!info-ultrix
From: casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.ultrix
Subject: Re: Licensing Issues Aren't DEC's Fault
Message-ID: <51995@felix.UUCP>
Date: 3 Aug 88 12:33:33 GMT
References: <50934@felix.UUCP>
Sender: info-ultrix@felix.UUCP
Reply-To: casey@admin.cognet.ucla.edu (Casey Leedom)
Organization: UCLA
Lines: 23
Approved: zemon@felix.UUCP
Reply-Path:


In article <50934@felix.UUCP>  somebody@somewhere.something writes:
> 
> You can't blame DEC for license since it is something that AT&T insists
> upon as part of the license that DEC has from AT&T.

  And so what about Sun, and most of the other UNIX systems out there?
Are they in violation of AT&T's licensing?  Almost surely.  So why does
DEC worry about it out of all the manufacturers of UNIX boxes.  Because
they've got their heads in the wrong place.

  Again, as it stands now I would not recommend DEC equipment to someone
unless they had special need to run VMS, etc.  It just isn't worth the
price.

In article <50934@felix.UUCP>  somebody@somewhere.something writes:
> signed,
> 	A. Nony Mouse

  This is annoying.  If you don't want to take responsibility for your
own writing, don't write.

Casey