From: Tim Shoppa <shoppa@alph02.triumf.ca>
Message-Id: <9803031708.AA24509@alph02.triumf.ca>
Subject: Re: Full Steam Ahead with License
To: neil@skatter.usask.ca (Neil Johnson)
Date: Tue, 3 Mar 1998 09:08:37 -0800 (PST)
Cc: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au, wkt@CS.ADFA.OZ.AU
In-Reply-To: <199803031632.KAA00644@hydrus.USask.Ca> from "Neil Johnson" at Mar 3, 98 10:32:06 am
Content-Type: text
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Precedence: bulk

> Another suggestion - keep a list of the licencees on the PUPS website. That
> way everyone would know who they could exchange software with. Most new
> stuff would probably end up on the site anyway, but during development
> it might be good to know.

As most all of the "new stuff" lately seems to be 2.11BSD-related,
this brings up a (probably silly) question of mine: what's the
relationship between the SCO license agreement and 2.9, 2.10, and 2.11BSD?
Will the SCO license be functionally equivalent to a WE/AT&T source
license (other than the per-machine limitations)?  In other words,
are the 2BSD distributions "SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMS" in the language
of the agreement?

Another stupid question: few of us (perhaps I'm the only one) have
CD-ROM readers/writers attached to PDP-11's.  Will those who have to
transfer the source kit through a PC-clone or other Unix workstation
have to license the intermediary machines with SCO?  In other words,
will the intermediary machines need to be registered as "DESIGNATED
CPU"s?

Tim.