[OpenAFS] is YFS a "derived work"?

[Troy Benjegerdes]

Let's look at this another way...

If someone actually bothers to file an IP lawsuit of any sort regarding AFS,
then I think this would be the most credible sign of success I could possibly
imagine.

And then, in that case, if there were an issue, there would be sufficient 
community resources to re-write offending code, or re-purpose/extend things
like Arla, or the linux kernel kafs client.

What would be the downside of someone 'forcing' YFS back into the open
source domain? By that time, there should be plenty of customers wanting 
support contracts that it won't matter.

On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 10:21:54AM -0700, Ted Creedon wrote:
> The IP (intellectual property) in YFS seems to be derived from AFS's IP.
> 
> If that case can be made, IBM or any other entity could force YFS back into
> the open source domain.
> 
> The "look and feel" of YFS may also be a problem - see "Broderbund" or
> better yet their attorney's web page.
> 
> http://www.quinnemanuel.com/attorneys/stern-claude-m.aspx
> 
> My direct experience is from a dispute Tektronix had with ParcPlace over
> Smalltalk licensing back in the '80's.
> 
> AFS may be able to claim infringement against other file systems because of
> its prior art (but its unpatented?).
> 
> Which brings up a point, has IBM or CMU protected AFS's IP in any way?
> 
> Tedc