Am Mittwoch, 16.07.03, um 09:55 Uhr (US/Pacific) schrieb Gilbert 
Fernandes:

> On Wed, Jul 16, 2003 at 12:48:46AM -0700, John Clark wrote:
>
>> The rhetorical question I have, is it still the case that BSD in
>> any of its major 'free' version, that is NetBSD and FreeBSD
>> in any way beholding to AT&T in any way shape or form?
>
> When USL brought BSD to court, they said that BSD had
> USL copyrighted content inside of it. That was true
> for a few files (3 over about 18000) but a not-funny
> thing was discovered: that USL people had stolen massive
> amounts of BSD code into their code, ripping off the BSD
> copyright licence along the way. The snake had bitten
> itself, and pretty hard...
>

My thought was not that at the end of the AT&T/USL UCB
litigation that the core code was safe.

But that now some 10 years later, with many changes to
the core code, there could conceivably be some 'Acquired USL Syndrome'
code.

Linux clearly was at free from any taint, but the current
claim as I read it was that USL code had been introduced into
the package somehow some way.

What controls are there for NetBSD here, or in general
the BSDs to avoid re-introducing USL code into the distributions.