SCO Source license tainting?

Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 17:00:54 +0100 (CET)
From: Jesper Nilsson < jesper@df.lth.se>
To: PDP Unix Preservation Society < pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: SCO Source license tainting?
Message-ID: < Pine.LNX.4.05-df.9902231646390.8684-100000@bartlet.df.lth.se>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

Tjo!

I have a question that I hope someone can help me with:

I'm thinking about getting myself a SCO Source license,
but I'm worried that I might get "tainted" by this
since my day job involves writing operating systems...
My employer would not appreciate getting sued because of
my hobbies...:-)

Has anyone done research about this aspect of the license?

My goals are twofold, running an older Unix version on my PDP-11's,
and of course I want to peruse the source of the classic versions.

/^JN - Jesper Nilsson
--
              I've heard of UNIseX, but I've never had it.
                  Jesper Nilsson -- jesper@df.lth.se

From owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Wed Feb 24 08:55:34 1999
Received: (from major@localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA24923
	for pups-liszt; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:52:24 +1100 (EST)
Received: from henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (henry.cs.adfa.edu.au [131.236.21.158])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id IAA24917
	for < pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:52:16 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from wkt@localhost)
	by henry.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id IAA04722
	for pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au; Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:52:15 +1100 (EST)
	(envelope-from wkt)
From: Warren Toomey < wkt@henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Message-Id: <199902232152.IAA04722@henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: SCO Source license tainting?
In-Reply-To: < Pine.LNX.4.05-df.9902231646390.8684-100000@bartlet.df.lth.se> from Jesper Nilsson at "Feb 23, 1999  5: 0:54 pm"
To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (Unix Heritage Society)
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 08:52:15 +1100 (EST)
Reply-To: wkt@cs.adfa.edu.au
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4ME+ PL43 (25)]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

In article by Jesper Nilsson:
> I'm thinking about getting myself a SCO Source license,
> but I'm worried that I might get "tainted" by this
> since my day job involves writing operating systems...
> My employer would not appreciate getting sued because of
> my hobbies...:-)

As long as you don't reuse tainted Unix source code in your job, you will
be ok. There are so many books covering the Unix kernel: Lions, Bach,
Goodheart, Vahalia etc., that any concerns other than source code reuse
are negligible.

That's my feelings, anyway.

	Warren

Message-ID: <19990224111607.G93492@lemis.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Feb 1999 11:16:07 +1030
From: Greg Lehey < grog@lemis.com>
To: wkt@cs.adfa.edu.au, Unix Heritage Society < pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Subject: Re: SCO Source license tainting?
References: < Pine.LNX.4.05-df.9902231646390.8684-100000@bartlet.df.lth.se> <199902232152.IAA04722@henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
In-Reply-To: <199902232152.IAA04722@henry.cs.adfa.edu.au>; from Warren Toomey on Wed, Feb 24, 1999 at 08:52:15AM +1100
WWW-Home-Page: http://www.lemis.com/~grog
Organization: LEMIS, PO Box 460, Echunga SA 5153, Australia
Phone: +61-8-8388-8286
Fax: +61-8-8388-8725
Mobile: +61-41-739-7062
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

On Wednesday, 24 February 1999 at  8:52:15 +1100, Warren Toomey wrote:
> In article by Jesper Nilsson:
>> I'm thinking about getting myself a SCO Source license,
>> but I'm worried that I might get "tainted" by this
>> since my day job involves writing operating systems...
>> My employer would not appreciate getting sued because of
>> my hobbies...:-)
>
> As long as you don't reuse tainted Unix source code in your job, you will
> be ok. There are so many books covering the Unix kernel: Lions, Bach,
> Goodheart, Vahalia etc., that any concerns other than source code reuse
> are negligible.

I think this relates to a spectre raised during the USL/BSDI wars.
Somebody suggested that anybody who had been exposed to AT&T source
code was ``tainted'' and could thus not legally develop competitive
systems.  Somewhere I have a button that somebody brought back to me
from a USENIX, with the text ``mentally contaminated''.

Jesper, I don't think you need to worry about the problem.  That kind
of restriction would be unenforceable.

Greg
--
See complete headers for address, home page and phone numbers
finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key