Content deleted Content added
→Dubious POV claims: new section |
|||
Line 240:
: I fixed it using the {{template|pre2}} tag. ~ [[User:10nitro|10nitro]] ([[User talk:10nitro|talk]]) 21:35, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
== Dubious POV claims ==
[I'm commenting out the claim here.](http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=BSD_licenses&diff=466848763&oldid=466847268)
That statement is highly POV and dubious:
* Cf. [[USL v. BSDi]].
* [[Unix System Laboratories|USL v. BSDi was settled out of court 1993 after the judge expressed doubt as to the validity of USL's intellectual property.]]
* There were disputed files. The actual copyright status of those files was never determined in court, because "AT&T"(USL) chose to settle as they had themselves been distributing UC Berkeley files and had significant exposure to [[USL_v._BSDi#University.27s_Counterclaim|counterclaims.]] It was never determined whether those files which UC Berkeley et. al. stopped distributing as part of the (previously) secret settlement were actually infringing on any USL rights at all. USL *claimed* they were. The view that actual AT&T licenses applied is just a partisan POV. The opposing partisan POV is that UC Berkeley's claims were a lot stronger and that a settlement was reached that were very favourable to the university's interests but allowed USL/AT&T to save face and avoid exposure to UC Berkeley's strong counterclaims. Neither of these POV statements probably should be in this particular article.
[[Special:Contributions/31.16.123.164|31.16.123.164]] ([[User talk:31.16.123.164|talk]]) 11:57, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
| |||