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