Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!bbn!rochester!udel!princeton!mind!romero From: romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Re: Posting UNIX(R) system source (was: Vi for the PC/XT) Summary: I wouldn't be so sure about that... Message-ID: <2561@mind.UUCP> Date: 24 Jun 88 15:18:46 GMT References: <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu> <1382@lznv.ATT.COM> Distribution: comp Organization: Cognitive Science, Princeton University Lines: 18 In article <1382@lznv.ATT.COM>, psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > < If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T > has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a > stand, too, right? About that "taking no stand is taking a stand too" business: Well, actually, I think this may not be the case. I thought I heard somewhere that IBM is now, after all these years, talking about trying to extract some kind of licensing fees or penalties from everyone who ever cloned an IBM PC. Despite having said nothing for years, the theory is that they may well be within their rights in doing so (I happen to think they're not, what the hell do I know, I'm no lawyer). I seem to remember reading this about a month ago. I don't recall the details; can someone back me up on this, or did I just dream it? -Antonio Romero romero@confusion.princeton.edu