Re: SUN Agreement

"Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu> Thu, 06 April 1995 16:41 UTC

Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04592; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04588; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: from ietf.cnri.reston.va.us by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18722; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: from ietf.nri.reston.va.us by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04579; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: from CNRI.Reston.VA.US by IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa04575; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: from BIG-SCREW.MIT.EDU by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa18717; 6 Apr 95 12:41 EDT
Received: by big-screw id AA07774; Thu, 6 Apr 95 12:39:33 -0400
Message-Id: <aba9c99407021004d41a@[199.92.189.173]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Thu, 6 Apr 1995 12:39:43 -0400
To: "Vinton G. Cerf" <0001050002@mcimail.com>
X-Orig-Sender: iesg-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
Sender: ietf-archive-request@IETF.CNRI.Reston.VA.US
From: "Jeffrey I. Schiller" <jis@mit.edu>
Subject: Re: SUN Agreement
Cc: iesg <iesg@CNRI.Reston.VA.US>

At 18:18 4/5/95, Vinton G. Cerf wrote:
>I don't think the changes alter the basic intent - they
>just clarify that only the specs and not the implementations
>are being transferred.

What does this mean? Specifically does this change imply that vendors who
implement the specs might have to be individually licensed from Sun?

                                -Jeff