From: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 1 Aug 1992 21:20:07 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 155 Message-ID: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> Reply-To: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.112.15 UNIGRAM's article is heavily slanted, badly written, and insufficiently researched. Let me point out a few highlights: >Last Tuesday or Wednesday the traffic on UUNet over this BSDI >suit (see front page) got so heavy the protesters formed their >own group (alt.suit.att-bsdi).... The group, reminiscent of the >old drug-happy hippy-freak Unix culture that was so enamoured of >free software.... Note that they have avoided slander by saying "reminiscent of" and not identifying any specific person as part of the "old drug-happy hippy-freak Unix culture". Personally, I like to think of myself as part of the "Unix culture", and I can state categorically that I have never used an illegal drug. (Not even Bill Clinton can say that!) (Yes, I have never used marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc., etc. I *have* tried some of the legal drugs---specifically beer, wine, and tobacco ---and decided not to use any of those either. I know this makes me a "freak" in today's culture, but hardly one of the "drug-happy hippy-freak" variety. [I have been known to eat large quantities of chocolate, however :-) .]) I believe UNIGRAM owe the "Unix culture" an apology for this remark. Anyway: >BSDI's response to the amended suit, which was served last >Thursday, was to declare it "totally without merit" and "another >step in [USL's] harassment campaign." ... Note their own claim: "amended suit ... served last Thursday". Yet not much later: >... BSDI, meanwhile, is attempting to try the case in the court of >public opinion. The week before last it put the full text of the >initial complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet ostensibly >because so many were asking to see the exact wording. ... Note their implications: (a) BSDI is "hiding" the expanded suit; (b) BSDI has some ulterior motive. How could they possible put the text of the expanded suit on UUNET *before* they received it ("week before last")? >According to USL, the school effectively rejected a proposal for a full >comparison of Berkeley versus USL code by unbiased third parties ... >Had that proposal been acted on, McKusick, CSRG senior programmer >and past president of Usenix, would have found himself in another >conflict of interests since he is believed to be a secret a >director of BSDI. (I believe I have joined `that proposal' correctly with its antecedent. There is a paragraph break across my elision, making this unclear. UNIGRAM's story is not only slanted, it is poorly-written.) The first quote is valid journalism: "USL claims that UC Berkeley did X". The second is a conclusion, and as far as I can tell an invalid one. Were McKusick a "secret .. director of BSDI", where is the conflict of interest? If the comparison were by an unbiased third party, how would McKusick's preferences come into play? And as another example of slanting, note the unsubstantiated implication that McKusick has "found himself in [previous] conflict[s] of interests". If this is true, UNIGRAM should back it up; if false, UNIGRAM are treading on thin ice. >... Another director is Don Seeley, an employee of UUNet Technologies, >the supplier of UUNet. (Actually, his name is "Donn", not "Don", and I believe he is a BSDI employee, not a UUNET employee. This is not an example of slant but is one of insufficient investigation---although I suppose "Don" could be a typographic error.) >Clearly USL will argue that CSRG staff gave themselves permission >to commercialise the system and will doubtless note a violation of >the university's established code of ethics which requires university >personnel with a financial interest in a university decision to >disqualify themselves. This is sheer speculation. USL may or may not argue this. More important, however, is the implication that there *is* a "violation of the university's established code of ethics". This alleged violation appears to be that CSRG "gave themselves permission to commercialise the system"---but were CSRG members suddenly to decide to sell Berkeley software, they would not have to give themselves "permission". The Berkeley license has, since 1981 if not earlier, ALWAYS given permission for others, including corporations, to do anything they want with UC Berkeley software, including sell it, as long as the Unversity of California is properly acknowledged. >BSDI, meanwhile, is attempting to try the case in the court of public >opinion. The week before last it put the full text of the initial >complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet ostensibly because >so many were asking to see the exact wording. I have repeated this here (in its original placement) because I believe this placement is contrived to obscure the fact that the expanded suit was not available, and thus could not possibly have been put on UUNET, at that time. UNIGRAM is attempting to imply that BSDI is somehow being underhanded in disclosing the text of the initial complaint. [The following is presumably the text on "page four"] >The week before last, BSDI put the full text of Unix System Labs' >initial complaint ... ostensibly because ... Again, note the implication about ulterior motives: an unsubstantiated allegation, hardly unbiased journalism. >As might be expected, the move has stirred up a hornet's nest of >academic fear and loathing against USL A colorful phrase, but not inaccurate---even the worst reporting can be partly right. :-) >and has created a cadre of naive tech weinees ready to form a >lynch mob. For all their thousands of lines of protests, however, >no one has flat out denied USL's intellectual property rights. As others have noted (see References), this is false. In fact, UCB and BSDI have denied it as well---this is what the suit is *about*! Calling people `naive tech weinees' is at best unkind, and uncalled-for. In article leb@Hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov (Lee E. Brotzman) writes: >I can't blame [USL] for trying to enforce their so-called rights to the >license agreements that were signed by the UC Regents (and every other >commercial vendor, as reported in this newsgroup). That's what the >courts are for. Quite so. Note that the alleged second suit---I have not seen it, so I have to refer to it this way to be accurate---is supposed to contain specific claims, which, as the BSDI lawyers noted earlier, are needed in order for the suit to stand up in court. In article <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes: [from the suit] >>According to USL, the school effectively rejected a proposal for a full >>comparison of Berkeley versus USL code by unbiased third parties >Didn't the school used to run their code by AT&T before releasing it, >and it was AT&T who shut down this department? I believe this is correct, although it may have been USL rather than AT&T. Note that neither AT&T nor USL is an "unbiased third party", so this does not make UNIGRAM's statement false---just misleading. In this case, however, UNIGRAM is not at fault: they are only quoting USL. It is possible, corporations and public relations people being what they are, that the USL spokesperson(s) were unaware of this. In any case, I claim that UNIGRAM's article is bad journalism. They should either stick to reporting the various claims and counterclaims or substantiate their allegations, rather than engaging in idle, slanted, and/or inflammatory speculation. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 510 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Date: 3 Aug 92 14:32:59 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 45 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: | >BSDI, meanwhile, is attempting to try the case in the court of public | >opinion. The week before last it put the full text of the initial | >complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet ostensibly because | >so many were asking to see the exact wording. | | I have repeated this here (in its original placement) because I believe | this placement is contrived to obscure the fact that the expanded suit | was not available, and thus could not possibly have been put on UUNET, | at that time. UNIGRAM is attempting to imply that BSDI is somehow | being underhanded in disclosing the text of the initial complaint. What they imply in in the mind of the reader, but what they say sounds true to me. They appear to be trying to swing public opinion against USL, to bring pressure and cause damages (as in people buying osf1 or BSD/386 on moral rather than technical grounds). I don't normally expect this behavior of someone who expects to be upheld in court. It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance of trying to hide something, even if they're not. It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. Some do this by creating a bound spinoff like osf/1, while other try to do this by writing a whole new o/s. like linux. Unfortunately there is a third class of person who trys to steal the UNIX code, either byte for byte or by rewiting the individual routines, and that's what the case is all about. When this started I thought the major legitimate complaint was that BSDI was using the word UNIX pretty freely in its literature. Now that so much effort is going into avoiding a fair evaluation of the entire body of the code, I am willing to accept the possibility the BSDI has used some UNIX code in their implementation. I still have an open mind on this, but that's a long way from my original assumption. Based on the old "if it walks like a duck..." addage, if a party behaves as if they have something to hide it certainly doesn't help me believe they don't. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COCOL. But I didn't compile. From: dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis D Spinellis) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: 3 Aug 92 16:10:15 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Sender: usenet@doc.ic.ac.uk Organization: Department of Computing, Imperial College, University of London, UK. Lines: 29 Nntp-Posting-Host: swan.doc.ic.ac.uk In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >of trying to hide something, even if they're not. Trying to play the devil's advocate, I can see why BSDI could be afraid of such a comparison. A third party examining the whole body of the source code, would definitely find many similarities between the BSDI and the AT&T version. I think that the directory structure, the split into modules, and the filenames would be similar between the two systems. The third party could argue, that that top level hierarchical organisation was based on the AT&T code. It could furthermore argue, that the top level organisation was a major and significant part of the propriety system. > When this started I thought the major legitimate complaint was that >BSDI was using the word UNIX pretty freely in its literature. Now that >so much effort is going into avoiding a fair evaluation of the entire >body of the code, I am willing to accept the possibility the BSDI has >used some UNIX code in their implementation. I doubt it: since the BSDI source code is part of their distribution it would be very unwise to include AT&T code in it. Either some code was left there by mistake, or AT&T will claim that they copied something more general, like the system structure (see above). Diomidis -- Diomidis Spinellis Internet: UUCP: ...!ukc!icdoc!dds Department of Computing, Imperial College, London SW7 #include "/dev/tty" Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: dds@doc.ic.ac.uk's message of 3 Aug 92 16:10:15 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@uchinews.uchicago.edu (News System) Organization: Center for Population Economics References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 20:21:23 GMT Lines: 17 In article <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis D Spinellis) writes: The third party could argue, that that top level hierarchical organisation was based on the AT&T code. It could furthermore argue, that the top level organisation was a major and significant part of the propriety system. Does anyone know which AT&T UNIX system code we're talking about? Is it Version 7? Something newer, something older? -- --- Dietrich Kappe kap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu Center for Population Economics From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7052@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 4 Aug 92 15:06:36 GMT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 24 In article <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> dds@doc.ic.ac.uk (Diomidis D Spinellis) writes: >In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >> It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >>issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >>whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >>of trying to hide something, even if they're not. >Trying to play the devil's advocate, I can see why BSDI could be afraid >of such a comparison. A third party examining the whole body of the >source code, would definitely find many similarities between the BSDI >and the AT&T version. > Either some code >was left there by mistake, or AT&T will claim that they copied something >more general, like the system structure (see above). If that's why they're suing, why can't they say "they copied the general structure" themselves? Why this 3rd party? It's beginning to look like USL may not have any solid evidence at all. Perhaps they expect that a 3rd party will find some similarities (how could they not, between similar operating systems?) and then plan to claim that their case is proved by whatever similarities are found. From: sgr@alden.UUCP Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <503@alden.UUCP> Date: 5 Aug 92 15:45:05 GMT References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> <7052@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@alden.UUCP Reply-To: sgr@alden.UUCP Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: (Actually, very disorganized) Lines: 17 In article <7052@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: [...] >It's beginning to look like USL may not have any solid evidence >at all. Perhaps they expect that a 3rd party will find some >similarities (how could they not, between similar operating >systems?) and then plan to claim that their case is proved by >whatever similarities are found. Gee, doesn't this whole thing remind you of the horror stories one hears about IRS audits? "Let us search your books and see if we can find any little screwup!" Maybe USL has some ex-IRS employees! Stan. -- This .signature has expired. Call 1-900-YOU-FOOL to find out why. Stan Ryckman sgr@alden.UUCP From: rhillman@loligo.cc.fsu.edu (Richard Hillman (HRS-Mike Wheaton)) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Keywords: at&t bsdi Message-ID: <1992Aug4.123412.22827@mailer.cc.fsu.edu> Date: 10 Aug 92 11:57:36 GMT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.161015.7120@doc.ic.ac.uk> Sender: Richard Hillman (rhillman@loligo.cc.fsu.edu) Lines: 11 re: comparing bodies of code Since a third party would see similarities between BSDi's code and AT&T's code perhaps a body of code which both parties agree on as being non-AT&T derived should be used as a model for gauging which similarities are ok and which are not. Perhaps Linux or Minix would be suitable since they are unencumbered by AT&T code, and yet since will bare any of the similarities that any *ix like operating system would have. Richard rhillman@loligo.cc.fsu.edu From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 3 Aug 92 16:39:10 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 49 In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: >| UNIGRAM is attempting to imply that BSDI is somehow >| being underhanded in disclosing the text of the initial complaint. > > What they imply in in the mind of the reader, but what they say sounds >true to me. They appear to be trying to swing public opinion against >USL, And what's wrong with that? > It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >of trying to hide something, even if they're not. No. They're just trying to get USL to say what supposedly was copied and to avoid anything tending to put the burden of proof on UCB. Lawyers do that kind of thing. It doesn't mean there's something to hide. Besides, USL claims NET/2 is contaminated. The NET/2 sources are available to USL, and they can therefore find anything that anyone's "trying to hide" there. They can even give NET/2 and their own code to a 3rd party. Why don't they? If USL has any evidence that code was copied, they should be able to say what code it was. For some reason, they don't seem to want to do this. > It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. I don't mind USL profiting. What I mind is their trying to prevent other people from using non-AT&T and non-USL code written at Berkeley (and elsewhere). > Unfortunately there is a third >class of person who trys to steal the UNIX code, either byte for byte or >by rewiting the individual routines, and that's what the case is all >about. What's this about "rewriting individual routines"? I hope you don't want to suggest that if someone has a copyrighted (or otherwise protectec) compression routine no one can write _any_ compression algorithm because that would be rewriting a routine. -- jd Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 3 Aug 92 16: 39:10 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:12:14 GMT Lines: 66 >>>>> On 3 Aug 92 16:39:10 GMT, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) said: Jeff> In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: Jeff> If USL has any evidence that code was copied, they should be able Jeff> to say what code it was. For some reason, they don't seem to want Jeff> to do this. The issue may be more than copyright. I believe the software license which UCB signed with AT&T, now USL, requires them to protect the intellectual property beyond just the simple copyright. Doesn't the license signed by UCB require them to protect ``ideas, concepts and techniques'' or something vague like that? The copyright notice at the top of each file is not the only thing protecting the technology. > It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. Chris is right. There is a wide-spread perception that ``UNIX'' -- trademark, code, interfaces, ideas -- is public property. And some of it (interfaces and ideas) may very well be. Jeff> I don't mind USL profiting. What I mind is their trying to prevent Jeff> other people from using non-AT&T and non-USL code written at Berkeley Jeff> (and elsewhere). Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Whether it is legally possible to protect such things as general as implementation ideas is a separate question. Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? They weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. I find this (legal, or not) ``stealing'' of ideas reprehensible. It is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I will license to other parties, if those other parties can: license my stuff for a couple years study my implementation and techniques copy my ideas and implementation (changing the actual code) cut me out of the picture That does not give me a whole lot of incentive for further investment in the development of products for open licensing. The BSDI people chant the litany of how they are the champions of open systems, but they are the ones spoiling open systems for everyone. Jeff> What's this about "rewriting individual routines"? Jeff> I hope you don't want to suggest that if someone has a copyrighted Jeff> (or otherwise protectec) compression routine no one can write _any_ Jeff> compression algorithm because that would be rewriting a routine. It was recently explained to me (I am no expert on this stuff) that this would be about software patents, not copyrights. And, yes, patented techniques cannot be used freely. Mike ---- (Just my personal opinions ...) From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 4 Aug 1992 07:36:38 GMT Organization: Dis- Lines: 55 Sender: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Message-ID: <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu Summary: not accurate, friend... In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >The issue may be more than copyright. I believe the software license >which UCB signed with AT&T, now USL, requires them to protect the >intellectual property beyond just the simple copyright. Doesn't the >license signed by UCB require them to protect ``ideas, concepts and >techniques'' or something vague like that? The copyright notice at >the top of each file is not the only thing protecting the technology. First I've heard of it... >Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe >parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Whether it is >legally possible to protect such things as general as implementation >ideas is a separate question. > >Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI >people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you >think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? They >weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the >ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with >the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. > >I find this (legal, or not) ``stealing'' of ideas reprehensible. It >is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what >incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and >collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I >will license to other parties, if those other parties can: What? I understand some parts of how UNIX internals work. I have not, to my knowledge, looked at encumbered code. Rather, I've read articles and books and talked to people about how it works. Every little detail of the UNIX operating system has been disected time and time again in journals, books, and online and offline discussions. If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. It might fall under patent law, but they didn't patent most of UNIX, they just copyrighted the code. If you don't want an idea "stolen", you don't discuss it in public and encourage scholarly examination and work on it. USL's only fair grounds for complaint are if specific sections were copied such that they are violations of USL copyright. -george william herbert gwh@soda.berkeley.edu gwh@lurnix.com herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug ++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved. Permission ++ ++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use ++ Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 3 Aug 92 16: 39:10 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:12:14 GMT Lines: 66 >>>>> On 3 Aug 92 16:39:10 GMT, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) said: Jeff> In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: Jeff> If USL has any evidence that code was copied, they should be able Jeff> to say what code it was. For some reason, they don't seem to want Jeff> to do this. The issue may be more than copyright. I believe the software license which UCB signed with AT&T, now USL, requires them to protect the intellectual property beyond just the simple copyright. Doesn't the license signed by UCB require them to protect ``ideas, concepts and techniques'' or something vague like that? The copyright notice at the top of each file is not the only thing protecting the technology. > It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. Chris is right. There is a wide-spread perception that ``UNIX'' -- trademark, code, interfaces, ideas -- is public property. And some of it (interfaces and ideas) may very well be. Jeff> I don't mind USL profiting. What I mind is their trying to prevent Jeff> other people from using non-AT&T and non-USL code written at Berkeley Jeff> (and elsewhere). Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Whether it is legally possible to protect such things as general as implementation ideas is a separate question. Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? They weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. I find this (legal, or not) ``stealing'' of ideas reprehensible. It is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I will license to other parties, if those other parties can: license my stuff for a couple years study my implementation and techniques copy my ideas and implementation (changing the actual code) cut me out of the picture That does not give me a whole lot of incentive for further investment in the development of products for open licensing. The BSDI people chant the litany of how they are the champions of open systems, but they are the ones spoiling open systems for everyone. Jeff> What's this about "rewriting individual routines"? Jeff> I hope you don't want to suggest that if someone has a copyrighted Jeff> (or otherwise protectec) compression routine no one can write _any_ Jeff> compression algorithm because that would be rewriting a routine. It was recently explained to me (I am no expert on this stuff) that this would be about software patents, not copyrights. And, yes, patented techniques cannot be used freely. Mike ---- (Just my personal opinions ...) From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 4 Aug 1992 07:36:38 GMT Organization: Dis- Lines: 55 Sender: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Message-ID: <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu Summary: not accurate, friend... In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >The issue may be more than copyright. I believe the software license >which UCB signed with AT&T, now USL, requires them to protect the >intellectual property beyond just the simple copyright. Doesn't the >license signed by UCB require them to protect ``ideas, concepts and >techniques'' or something vague like that? The copyright notice at >the top of each file is not the only thing protecting the technology. First I've heard of it... >Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe >parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Whether it is >legally possible to protect such things as general as implementation >ideas is a separate question. > >Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI >people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you >think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? They >weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the >ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with >the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. > >I find this (legal, or not) ``stealing'' of ideas reprehensible. It >is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what >incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and >collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I >will license to other parties, if those other parties can: What? I understand some parts of how UNIX internals work. I have not, to my knowledge, looked at encumbered code. Rather, I've read articles and books and talked to people about how it works. Every little detail of the UNIX operating system has been disected time and time again in journals, books, and online and offline discussions. If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. It might fall under patent law, but they didn't patent most of UNIX, they just copyrighted the code. If you don't want an idea "stolen", you don't discuss it in public and encourage scholarly examination and work on it. USL's only fair grounds for complaint are if specific sections were copied such that they are violations of USL copyright. -george william herbert gwh@soda.berkeley.edu gwh@lurnix.com herbert@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug ++ copyright 1992 george william herbert. All rights reserved. Permission ++ ++ granted for Usenet transmission/use and followup/reply articles/mail use ++ From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 92 19:38:39 GMT References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan Lines: 31 In-Reply-To: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu's message of 4 Aug 92 07: 36:38 GMT >>>>> On 4 Aug 92 07:36:38 GMT, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) said: }> What? }> I understand some parts of how UNIX internals work. }> I have not, to my knowledge, looked at encumbered code. }> Rather, I've read articles and books and talked to people }> about how it works. Every little detail of the UNIX operating }> system has been disected time and time again in journals, }> books, and online and offline discussions. Fortunately or unfortunately, in order to create a successful software system, one must reveal as much as possible about one's product. The more people know about your implementation, the better they can use it, and the more successful the product will become. If nobody knew anything about how UNIX works, it would not have much of a chance of being a commercial success. }> If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary }> code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their }> copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. }> That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. As I mentioned, independent of the legality, this practice has a deleterious effect on open systems, discourages industry investment in creating licensable technology, and shows no respect for the value of the specification and design time invested by the original creators of the system. That the legal system may no protect such things is unfortunate. Mike ---- From: rlk@underprize.think.com (Robert Krawitz) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 5 Aug 92 10:48:56 Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge Mass., USA Lines: 71 Message-ID: References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: underprize.think.com In-reply-to: kandall@nsg.sgi.com's message of 5 Aug 92 19:38:39 GMT (note that I'm speaking only for myself) In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >>>>> On 4 Aug 92 07:36:38 GMT, gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) said: }> What? }> I understand some parts of how UNIX internals work. }> I have not, to my knowledge, looked at encumbered code. }> Rather, I've read articles and books and talked to people }> about how it works. Every little detail of the UNIX operating }> system has been disected time and time again in journals, }> books, and online and offline discussions. Fortunately or unfortunately, in order to create a successful software system, one must reveal as much as possible about one's product. The more people know about your implementation, the better they can use it, and the more successful the product will become. If nobody knew anything about how UNIX works, it would not have much of a chance of being a commercial success. That's life. When you introduce a new product, and it's successful, people compete with you. So ATT/USL should be happy that it made the right choice by making Unix reasonably open in the first place. "The bulls can win, the bears can win, but the hogs can never win". Mind you, Apple has done fairly well (unfortunately, in my personal opinion) by being rather closed. While I detest this practice, at least they've been consistent since day 0. }> If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary }> code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their }> copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. }> That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. As I mentioned, independent of the legality, this practice has a deleterious effect on open systems, discourages industry investment in creating licensable technology, and shows no respect for the value of the specification and design time invested by the original creators of the system. That the legal system may no protect such things is unfortunate. The free market means you have the opportunity to sink as well as swim. You are not guaranteed a return on your investment. If someone outplays you at your own game, that's part of life. If I buy a house, and the market drops, am I "entitled" to have its value increase when I want to sell it because of the work I did saving for the down payment, putting in a deck, remodeling the kitchen, etc.? Mind you, CSRG/BSD invested considerable time and effort into improving Unix, too. Why should USL be able to take advantage, gratis, of CSRG and BSD's work? As for reverse engineering, redesigning, etc. hurting open systems, that seems rather contrary to real world experience. The major system architectures that have the most market share in the low end and workstation segments of the market -- the PC and Sparc -- have all been cloned, improved, etc. by companies that show no respect for what IBM or Sun did other than than the highest form of flattery of all -- imitation. IBM and Sun have made out quite handsomely from this. And the GNU software is rapidly becoming the software of choice on many Unix platforms (and some others) -- GNU Emacs is "the world" for many people, GCC is one of the most solid and portable compilers in existence -- despite the FSF taking NO "intellectual property" claims on these products. -- ames >>>>>>>>> | Robert Krawitz 245 First St. bloom-beacon > |think!rlk Cambridge, MA 02142 harvard >>>>>> . Thinking Machines Corp. (617)234-2116 Member of the League for Programming Freedom -- write league@prep.ai.mit.edu From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7064@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 5 Aug 92 16:34:42 GMT References: <15lc26INNlpq@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 22 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >}> If that knowledge, gained without reading AT&T's proprietary >}> code, is then used to recreate part of UNIX, is it violating their >}> copyright? That's NOT what current copyright law generally holds. >}> That's not what current intellectual propertly law holds. > >As I mentioned, independent of the legality, this practice has a >deleterious effect on open systems, discourages industry investment in >creating licensable technology, and shows no respect for the value of >the specification and design time invested by the original creators of >the system. That the legal system may no protect such things is >unfortunate. You still seem to be under the impression that most of NET/2 is somehow due to AT&T or USL as "the original creators of the system". But in fact almost every interesting part of the older BSD (the one that included AT&T code) was developed by Berkeley. If BSDI wins, it will not discourage industry investment in creating licensable technology. This is very much a special case. From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7053@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 4 Aug 92 15:51:37 GMT References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 94 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >Jeff> If USL has any evidence that code was copied, they should be able >Jeff> to say what code it was. For some reason, they don't seem to want >Jeff> to do this. > >The issue may be more than copyright. Fine. I'd say the same thing (mutatis mutandis) about these other issues. >> It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >>dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. > >Chris is right. There is a wide-spread perception that ``UNIX'' -- >trademark, code, interfaces, ideas -- is public property. And some >of it (interfaces and ideas) may very well be. A lot if it _is_ in effect public, because it's been published in books (while not being patented), etc. Nonetheless, I object to the implication that those of us who think AT&T/USL is wrong "want something for nothing". What we want is for work done at Berkeley, made available by Berkeley, and in part funded by public money (ie, we've paid for it via taxes), to be available as intended. >Jeff> I don't mind USL profiting. What I mind is their trying to prevent >Jeff> other people from using non-AT&T and non-USL code written at Berkeley >Jeff> (and elsewhere). > >Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe >parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Again, I'd say the same thing (mutatis mutandis) about these other issues. >Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI >people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you >think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? What do you think happened at Berkeley during all the years of work on Berkeley Unix (BSD)? Just what ideas were taken from USL? You really ought to find out something about this before reaching that sort of conclusion. You also seem to be under the impression that there's something mysterious or especialy difficult about writing UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems. There isn't. > They >weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the >ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with >the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. BTW, what do you think should be said of people who looked at Minix and learned how to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems that way? >It is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what >incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and >collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I >will license to other parties, if those other parties can: > > license my stuff for a couple years > study my implementation and techniques > copy my ideas and implementation (changing the actual code) > cut me out of the picture Again, you seem to have a completely mistaken idea of the history of BSD Unix. If the history really was as you seem to think, I'd agree with you. >Jeff> What's this about "rewriting individual routines"? >Jeff> I hope you don't want to suggest that if someone has a copyrighted >Jeff> (or otherwise protected) compression routine no one can write _any_ >Jeff> compression algorithm because that would be rewriting a routine. > >It was recently explained to me (I am no expert on this stuff) that >this would be about software patents, not copyrights. And, yes, >patented techniques cannot be used freely. Just so. But the prohibition is not against rewriting individual routines. For instance, compression algorithms have been patented, but that doesn't mean I can't write my own compression routine (with, say, the same external interface). I just have to use a different algorithm. (Not that algorithms ought to be patentable.) -- jd From: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 4 Aug 1992 22:35:40 GMT Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley Lines: 17 Message-ID: <25222@dog.ee.lbl.gov> References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Reply-To: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.112.15 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) quotes Jeff Dalton and Bill Davidsen. The references eventually lead back to article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, by me (torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov). None of the text I wrote, however, appeared in at all! >> It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >>dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. >Chris is right. Please note that I did not write that. I may believe it, but someone was not careful with attributions. -- In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 510 486 5427) Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Organization: Ask Computer Systems Inc., Ingres Division, Alameda CA 94501 References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 4 Aug 92 16:29:51 GMT Lines: 11 Michael Kandall asks: > Where do you think [BSDI] learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt > operating systems? Where do you think Ken learned to write them? Models were available. Do you think AT&T invented timesharing? -- Jon -- Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 4 Aug 92 21:09:29 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Sender: news@twilight.wpd.sgi.com ( CNews Account at twilight.wpd.sgi.com ) Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Lines: 19 In article <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM>, jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes: |> Michael Kandall asks: |> > Where do you think [BSDI] learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt |> > operating systems? |> |> Where do you think Ken learned to write them? |> |> Models were available. Do you think AT&T invented timesharing? Right. Like Multics, the MIT ancestor of Unix. If USL/AT&T are claiming intellectual property rights, how do they deal with Multics? It would be amusing if the prior art in Multics was used to toss out the suit, and perhaps even used to extract royaly payments to MIT *from* AT&T (I can dream, right? :^) - Don Coolidge coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: geoff@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Organization: Software Tool & Die Netnews Research Center References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 02:53:35 GMT Lines: 12 Don Coolidge: >Right. Like Multics, the MIT ancestor of Unix. If USL/AT&T are >claiming intellectual property rights, how do they deal with Multics? Quite simply: Multics was a joint effort of General Electric (later Honeywell), M.I.T. and (AT&T) Bell Labs. M.I.T. may have been the last party to abandon the sinking ship, but that doesn't mean that they developed Multics by themselves. -- Geoff Collyer world.std.com!geoff, uunet.uu.net!geoff ``Leave the evil grasping to us.'' - A. L. Arms, UNIX licensing, WECo. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com's message of Tue, 4 Aug 92 21: 09:29 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 19:55:15 GMT Lines: 17 >>>>> On Tue, 4 Aug 92 21:09:29 GMT, coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) said: Don> Right. Like Multics, the MIT ancestor of Unix. If USL/AT&T are Don> claiming intellectual property rights, how do they deal with Don> Multics? The Multics-UNIX and UNIX-386BSD comparison does not hold up. UNIX is significantly different than Multics in enough ways that I view it as an entirely different object. 386BSD was built and (until recently) has been marketed at a UNIX-clone. Yes, when is something different enough to call it ``significantly'' different is difficult to quantify. Mike ---- From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 5 Aug 92 16:39:31 GMT References: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 10 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: > >The Multics-UNIX and UNIX-386BSD comparison does not hold up. UNIX is >significantly different than Multics in enough ways that I view it as >an entirely different object. 386BSD was built and (until recently) >has been marketed at a UNIX-clone. It has not been marketed as a UNIX clone. It is a Berkeley Unix. Berkeley Unix is a not a clone of some other version of Unix. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Sender: news@twilight.wpd.sgi.com ( CNews Account at twilight.wpd.sgi.com ) Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. References: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 92 00:28:25 GMT Lines: 25 In article <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: |> In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: |> > |> >The Multics-UNIX and UNIX-386BSD comparison does not hold up. UNIX is |> >significantly different than Multics in enough ways that I view it as |> >an entirely different object. 386BSD was built and (until recently) |> >has been marketed at a UNIX-clone. |> |> It has not been marketed as a UNIX clone. It is a Berkeley |> Unix. Berkeley Unix is a not a clone of some other version |> of Unix. And if you think it is a clone, you can't have looked very carefully at much of the source code for each (excepting, of course, those parts of various UCB releases that AT&T/USL have appropriated into their own product...) Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. Original UNIX was an emasculated version of Multics (pun very much intended, by the original namers). It is blatantly derived from Multics. That's the same concept USL is alleging against BSDI/UCB in part of their suit... Don Coolidge coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 01:04:08 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> Lines: 29 In article coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: >Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. Not really. The Original UNIX was a "real world" replacement for Multics: it lacked a lot of the features, but did pick up some of the basic ideas (such as a shell-as-a-normal-program). >It is blatantly derived from Multics. It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with this... :) In any event, the USL suit is either claiming outright infringement (i.e., there is USL code in Net/2 and/or BSDI's code), or a form of infringement I can understand, if not agree with. Namely, that the Net/2 code was written to replace USL code, piece by piece, fragment by fragment, by people who knew the USL code, and, therefore, the code is based upon USL code. Or a combination of both, of course. This doesn't mean I agree with the latter concept. I don't really have an opinion about it just yet -- but I can appreciate USL's point of view. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah sef@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him." -----------------+ -- Jim Carrey Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: sef@kithrup.COM's message of Thu, 06 Aug 1992 01:04:08 GMT Message-ID: Sender: usenet@world.std.com (Mr USENET himself) Nntp-Posting-Host: ussr.std.com Organization: The World References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 04:57:30 GMT Lines: 19 >>It is blatantly derived from Multics. > >It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there >was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the >other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with >this... :) That's not what "derived" means in this context. It can just mean that the algorithms or internal structures were derived. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd. Date: Thu, 06 Aug 1992 05:08:14 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug06.050814.3969@kithrup.COM> References: <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Lines: 12 In article bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >It can just mean that the algorithms or internal structures were >derived. As far as I know, none of those were used by The Authors as they wrote the first versions of UNIX. -- Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah sef@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him." -----------------+ -- Jim Carrey Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others. From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7079@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 6 Aug 92 11:52:12 GMT References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 48 In article <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In any event, the USL suit is either claiming outright infringement (i.e., >there is USL code in Net/2 and/or BSDI's code), or a form of infringement I >can understand, if not agree with. Namely, that the Net/2 code was written >to replace USL code, piece by piece, fragment by fragment, by people who >knew the USL code, and, therefore, the code is based upon USL code. Or a >combination of both, of course. There's certainly a sense of "based on" that doesn't even require piece-by-piece replacement. Eg, suppose I learn about C compiler by reading a particular compiler and then write a new compiler from scratch using the same strategies and tactics (though w/o lining things up procedure by procedure). The person who wrote the 1st compiler might well think "Dalton wouldn't have his compiler if he hadn't read mine. And he's taken all my neat ideas." Whether he would have a legal remedy in this case I don't know. On the other hand, do we really want everyone to have to start over from nothing when learning CS (if it can still be called learning)? Surely there are some sources (books, articles, public domain code, etc) that we can use? What if the "person who wrote the 1st compiler" wrote a book too, and I read his book, his compiler, lots of other books and articles, other compilers? What if I started with his code, added lots of neat ideas, and eventually replace all of his code with my own? And what if all the neat ideas in his code had also been published in books and articles? It seems to be in this case, which is much more like the UCB/BSDI one, that what I've done should be allowed unless my replacement code follows his very closely, thus infringing his copyright. And then I ought to be able to replace it with code that doesn't infringe. In short, I think a copyright claim might make sense, if there's evidence to support it. And no one seems to be suggesting that patents are involved. That leaves trade secrets. Can it really be a valuable trade secret that someone implements something by writing two procedures F and G rather than dividing things up differently as F', H, and I? So it seems to me that if there are no copyright violations and no use of interesting, unpublished algorithms and techniques, then AT&T/USL do not have a claim I would find reasonable. -- jd From: terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.170508.14978@gateway.novell.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 17:05:08 GMT References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Sender: news@gateway.novell.com (NetNews) Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT Lines: 51 Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com In article <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: >In article coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: >>Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. > >Not really. The Original UNIX was a "real world" replacement for Multics: >it lacked a lot of the features, but did pick up some of the basic ideas >(such as a shell-as-a-normal-program). > >>It is blatantly derived from Multics. > >It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there >was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the >other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with >this... :) Well, at least it was intended as a loader for several Multics games on the PDP. This is the anecdotal reason for it's initial developement. >In any event, the USL suit is either claiming outright infringement (i.e., >there is USL code in Net/2 and/or BSDI's code), or a form of infringement I >can understand, if not agree with. Namely, that the Net/2 code was written >to replace USL code, piece by piece, fragment by fragment, by people who >knew the USL code, and, therefore, the code is based upon USL code. Or a >combination of both, of course. > >This doesn't mean I agree with the latter concept. I don't really have an >opinion about it just yet -- but I can appreciate USL's point of view. I don't agree with the concept, but, unlike you, I do not appreciate USL's point of view. This would mean that a manufacturer of "jump-suits" should be able to sue Sears for trying to replace their product a piece at a time because Sears sells flannel shirts and Levi's. It would mean that GM should be able to sue auto parts stores that attempt to replace GM cars one piece at a time. It would mean that Democrats should be able to sue Bush for trying to replace their congress one piece at a time (and vice versa, for the Democrats trying to replace the Republican president one piece at a time. The just plain base idiocy of the "piecemeal replacement" argument ticks me off. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From: mike@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.193353.28047@cs.uoregon.edu> Date: 6 Aug 92 19:33:53 GMT References: <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> <1992Aug6.170508.14978@gateway.novell.com> Sender: news@cs.uoregon.edu (Netnews Owner) Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept. Lines: 17 In article <1992Aug6.170508.14978@gateway.novell.com> terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes: > Well, at least it was intended as a loader for several Multics games >on the PDP. This is the anecdotal reason for it's initial developement. Not true. According to Ritchie's 1984 paper, Unix originally came about because there was a Multics spacewar game that cost too much CPU time to run. Thompson found an unused PDP-7 and set about *re-implementing* the spacewar game for it. In the process, he wrote an assembler, linker, floating point libraries, and a variety of other stuff. From there it wasn't far to a file system, and based on that they managed to persuade management to get them a PDP-11, and the rest is history. But Unix was never a "loader for Multics games". The PDP-7 wasn't even the same architecture as the GE-635. Incidentally, I suspect Pike's work on window systems was largely motivated by a desire to play asteroids. :-) From: ken@eies2.njit.edu (Kenneth Ng) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug8.175645.20087@njitgw.njit.edu> Date: 8 Aug 92 17:56:45 GMT References: <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk: <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM> Sender: news@njit.edu Organization: NJIT - EIES2 Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: eies2.njit.edu In article <1992Aug06.010408.2470@kithrup.COM: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes: :In article coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: :Not really. The Original UNIX was a "real world" replacement for Multics: :it lacked a lot of the features, but did pick up some of the basic ideas :(such as a shell-as-a-normal-program). :>It is blatantly derived from Multics. :It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there :was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the :other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with :this... :) I'm not sure if that was meant to be humorous, but I'll assume not. The most nebulous part of the USL suit is that they claim BSDI is a DERIVED (sp?) work. In other words, they claim that the *IDEAS* of UNIX(R) are theirs. Implimentation language is therefore not significant. From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.140958.6141@crd.ge.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 14:09:58 GMT References: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <7065@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 16 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article , coolidge@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes: | Moreover, the Multics comparison is entirely apropos. Original | UNIX was an emasculated version of Multics (pun very much intended, | by the original namers). It is blatantly derived from Multics. | That's the same concept USL is alleging against BSDI/UCB in part | of their suit... Remember that Multics was largely funded by GE and AT&T (our computers are the only ones ever used for Multics). AT&T had every right to use the concepts as they saw fit, as did GE, although our "see fit" was to sell the computer business to Honeywell. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug5.051412.8129@panix.com> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 05:14:12 GMT References: <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Organization: PANIX Public Access Unix & Internet, NYC Lines: 17 In article <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes: >Michael Kandall asks: >> Where do you think [BSDI] learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt >> operating systems? > >Where do you think Ken learned to write them? > >Models were available. Do you think AT&T invented timesharing? Or, to be more blunt, "Where do you think AT&T learned to write Multics-like, mu, mt operating systems?" -- Thor Lancelot Simon tls@panix.COM "Oh, you have wounded me! I have very few prejudices, actually. The biggest problem is that I am intolerant of fools. That is why I have such a low tolerance level for Libertarians." -- Jim McMaster From: igb@fulcrum.bt.co.uk (Ian G Batten) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.misc Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 92 15:13:27 GMT References: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <1992Aug5.051412.8129@panix.com> Sender: news@fulcrum.bt.co.uk Followup-To: comp.unix.misc Organization: Fulcrum Communications Lines: 19 >>>>> On 5 Aug 92 05:14:12 GMT, tls@panix.com (Thor Lancelot Simon) said: Thor> Or, to be more blunt, "Where do you think AT&T learned to write Thor> Multics-like, mu, mt operating systems?" Is Unix really that Multics-like? I used Multics and wrote a lot of code between 1983 and 1987 and I would say that although there are strong similarities of philosophy, Multics was so ground breaking that few Timeshare systems can escape the legacy. Is the relationship between Unix and Multics really much closer than between Multics and Twenex, Multics and VMS, whatever? I don't see the clear influence of Multics in detailed design issues. Mostly because Multics got it right in many areas where Unix still hasn't. Mind you, I was often told that the original Domain stuff for Apollos was VERY Multicious. ian From: bmw@isgtec.com (Bruce M. Walker) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <2969@isgtec.isgtec.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 15:34:42 GMT References: <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> Sender: root@isgtec.com Organization: ISG Technologies Inc., Mississauga Ontario Lines: 23 Jon Krueger answers: > Michael Kandall asks: > > Where do you think [BSDI] learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt > > operating systems? > > Where do you think Ken learned to write them? > Models were available. Do you think AT&T invented timesharing? To continue along this line, perhaps the consortium of Multics developers should now launch a suit against USL? After all, Ken's mind was tainted with exposure to Multics sources; and he implemented many Multics concepts in UNIX. And since one of the unstated goals of the BSD gang seems to be to put the rest of Multics back into UNIX (memory-mapped files et al), it would seem fitting that the Multics owners should side with Berkeley and BSDI against USL! (:-)/2 -- "The path of my life is strewn with cowpats from the devils' own herd." -- Edmund Blackadder II bmw@isgtec.com [ ...!uunet.ca!isgtec!bmw ] Bruce Walker From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 7 Aug 92 21:46:54 GMT References: <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <2969@isgtec.isgtec.com> Sender: news@NCD.COM Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc. Lines: 54 Nntp-Posting-Host: pepper In-reply-to: bmw@isgtec.com's message of 6 Aug 92 15:34:42 GMT >To continue along this line, perhaps the consortium of Multics developers >should now launch a suit against USL? This discussion is getting downright silly. You can't copyright a concept. This is the most fundamental rule of copyrights. You can only copyright an expression, such as a book or a piece of source code - the concepts that went into the source code are fundamentally not copyrightable. The only way that AT&T can make any claims about infringements due to concepts that they "own" is on the basis of licenses that various parties have signed, or based on the idea that the expression known as Net2 is a derivative of the expression known as UNIX 32V, in the sense that Net2 contains actual UNIX 32V code. AT&T has shown no evidence that Net2 contains 32V code in their lawsuit - they are making that claim, but they will have to present evidence to justify their claim, and they have yet to do so. AT&T's claim that Net2 makes use of trade secrets which were inappropriately made public by CSRG, perhaps in collusion with officers of BSDI, is, to me, the more defensible claim. In order for AT&T to win in their suit against BSDI, they must prove both that Net2 contains trade secrets covered under the 32V license, that CSRG released those secrets in violation of the 32V license, and that BSDI was in some way covered by that same license (i.e., the officers of the corporation were constrained by the license agreement, or the corporation itself was constrained by the license agreement). In order for AT&T to win against the Regents of UC Berkeley, they only have to prove that Net2 contains trade secrets covered by the 32V license, and that Berkeley released those trade secrets in violation of the 32V license agreement. This will probably be a lot easier than making the case against BSDI. However, the bottom line is that without extending copyright protection into an entirely new realm, the copyrighting of ideas, USL and the courts can't put the genie back into the bottle. Trade secret protection is enforced by contract law, which means that only those who have signed the contract are constrained from releasing the trade secret. Once the trade secret has passed into the hands of the public, legally or no, it is no longer a trade secret, and even somebody who has signed the license can snarf it and hack on it freely. As it is so eloquently put in the text of the USL suit, there is ``no suitable remedy at law.'' _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug8.230537.22549@rwwa.COM> Sender: news@rwwa.COM (News Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: spooky Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates References: <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <2969@isgtec.isgtec.com> Distribution: usa Date: Sat, 8 Aug 1992 23:05:37 GMT Lines: 65 In article , mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) writes: | Trade secret | protection is enforced by contract law, which means that only those | who have signed the contract are constrained from releasing the trade | secret. Not entirely true, as others are also constraied from ``releasing'' the trade secret. For example, if person A breaks into USL, and steals the source code, he is ``constrained'' from ``releasing'' the trade secret. | Once the trade secret has passed into the hands of the | public, legally or no, it is no longer a trade secret,... Again, not entirely true (legally, if not practically). If the disclosure resulted from a misappropriation, it may still be considered by the court to be a trade secret. Some basics about Trade Secrets: 1) A Trade Secret is any kind of confidential information used in business that gives competitive advantage. 2) In order to be protected, it must be *secret*, and it must be shown that it was or is about to be misappropriated by unfair or illegal means. 3) The trade secret owner must show he has made efforts to preserve the secrecy of the trade secret. Some ways this can be done include restricting access to the trade secret using contracts and using security proceedures. 4) The trade secret is only protected from illegal or unfair access. Reverse engineering is considered neither illegal or unfair (lacking specific statues to the contrary). Hiring away an employee who knows the secret, and having him tell you *is* often considered unfair. In one case, hiring a plane to fly over a partially constructed plant was considered to be unfair. In short, what is unfair is whatever the court says is unfair. Some examples of the above principles: a) Information that is not secret may not be protected as a Trade Secret. For example, if it is easy to reverse-engineer the information, if the information has been published, if the owner has not made adequate efforts to protect the secrecy, there is no protection. b) If you obtain the secret without doing anything illegal or unfair there is no protection, and you have not missappropriated the secret. If you find the source code of unix lying on the street, where it was carelessly dropped by the chairman of USL, you have not misappropriated it. ;-) (much of the above was paraphrased, without permission, from ``What Every Engineer Should Know About Patents'', one of a usefull series edited by a former professor of mine...) As many have pointed out, there is a reasonable doubt that USL has made an adequate effort to protect the secrecy of the unix code involved: many books and articles have been published about the gory details of it, and much of it has been publicly distributed for a long time without any action by USL. Also, much of the code has been reverse-engineered by people who have no duty of confidentiality. The practicality of this will also shurely affect the court. Even if CSRG is found to have misappropriated whatever part of BSD unix, if any, is eventually considered to be protected, it is unlikely that anyone who uses one of the reported ``hundreds of thoushands'' of copies of the code has much to worry about, given USL's tardy efforts to protect it. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) Date: 5 Aug 92 00:28:34 GMT Sender: news@NCD.COM References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov><1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.co m> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc. Nntp-Posting-Host: pepper In-reply-to: kandall@nsg.sgi.com's message of 4 Aug 92 21:12:14 GMT Lines: 47 >That does not give me a whole lot of incentive for further investment >in the development of products for open licensing. The BSDI people >chant the litany of how they are the champions of open systems, but >they are the ones spoiling open systems for everyone. Good. By all means, keep your vile "open licensing" away from my computers. Have you ever read the OSF/1 source license agreement? How about the OSF/Motif license agreement? Let me clue you in - they're even more closed than AT&T's license agreements. This isn't really OSF/s fault - most of their code is licensed from foundation members, which means that they don't have control over the actual language in the license. I understand that you might feel motivated to make a buck in this marketplace, but the copyright laws don't allow you to make a buck by copyrighting ideas; only by copyrighting specific expressions of ideas. Allowing AT&T and USL to use the copyright laws to enforce the ownership of the ideas inherent in UNIX, particularly when AT&T didn't invent any of them (as has been discussed in previous articles), and particularly when even those ideas embodied in AT&T code which UCB has had access to are irrelevant now, would be a horrifying travesty of justice. Furthermore, allow me to point out that AT&T represented UNIX as a research operating system and encouraged schools to hack on it in a free and open manner, as early as Version 3 (I think; it might have been V4 or V4). They then took a lot of work contributed by those outside institutions, packaged it up, and declared it their property. The early AT&T versions of UNIX didn't include the Bourne shell, and my recollection from talking to old-timers (sorry guys... :') is that a lot of the file descriptor paradigm came about after the initial university releases. Certainly, the VM code and many of the nifty utilities came after this time. I would be very surprised to learn if even 50% of the code included with the 32V release actually originated at AT&T. In other words, characterizing the situation WRT AT&T, USL, CSRG and BSDI in the way that you have is so completely off base as to border on the ridiculous. _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: brnstnd@nyu.edu's message of 4 Aug 92 12: 31:08 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 22:54:28 GMT Lines: 31 >>>>> On 4 Aug 92 12:31:08 GMT, brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein) said: }> In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: It is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. }> Don't be ridiculous. One thing which has spurred, or been spurred by, the open systems movement is the licensing of technology between vendors. A much larger portion of programmers today are porting and integrating ``standard'' platform tools, as opposed to creating and developing new proprietary ones. This has greatly enhanced application portability and interoperability, as the same tools are widely available across various systems (although many really creative systems programmers are bored to death). It may be legal to license stuff for a while, re-implement it, make sure `diff' fails and cut the supplier out of the action, but I cannot say I would call it moral, nor is it conducive to an industry based on open-systems. BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out of their money. }> Read prep.ai.mit.edu:pub/lpf/laf-fallacies.texi.Z. Will do. Mike ---- From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 5 Aug 92 16:43:48 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 13 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >It may be legal to license stuff for a while, re-implement it, make >sure `diff' fails and cut the supplier out of the action, but I cannot >say I would call it moral, nor is it conducive to an industry based on >open-systems. This is not a reasonable description of what has happened in this case. But I suspect there's no way some people can be convinced. AT&T just owns Unix, in their opinion, and anyone who implements a Unix owes AT&T. From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 13:56:07 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 106 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: | But I suspect there's no way some people can be convinced. | AT&T just owns Unix, in their opinion, and anyone who implements | a Unix owes AT&T. Correct. Anyone who implements an o/s which they sell (or give away) as UNIX, and which is based on AT&T code, owes AT&T. people who write a functional clone, reverse engineered, seem to have avoided USL claims so far (linix, linux, coherent, etc). Early BSD versions came to us as patch tapes to be applied to our licensed AT&T source code. Hard to argue that they were not based on UNIX. Later the AT&T parts were rewritten bit by bit, but in many cases using the same overall structure. If I may draw an analogy, once a builder (we can call him Dennis) started building foundations. They were very fine foundations, well built and could be used in any climate. Many people used those foundations, and when they moved to another location they were able to use the same foundation. The original builder trademarked his house as "Dennis_built." Another builder (we can call him Bill), funded by reaserch grant money, started with the foundation and added a spacious house with solar heating. It was now bigger, and prettier, and it used mirrors to make it seem even bigger than it really was. People liked that, and started calling the the new design "Dennis_built by Bill." The original builder liked some of the new features, and added them to basic plan. Soon the original builder was providing foundations with a first floor, solar heat, and a slightly different type of mirror, which made the house seem bigger, and was on the ceiling instead of the walls of the bedrooms. Now people could either buy the original foundation and get the add-on from the reaserch group, or for a few dollars more get the whole house from the original builder. People had a choice and as little porticos and gingerbread was added to one or the other, the best ideas moved back and forth, so all the people living in the houses had better homes. Other builders, seeing how much people liked these homes, designed their own. Some builders sold their homes as smaller, or cheaper, or with dorrs and windows which opened and closed very quickly. Some builders, being either rich or nice guys, built houses and gave them away. But they couldn't give a warranty on free houses, so people had to choose. They could have free, or a foundation from the original builder and trim for free (and some support from the friends of houses), or buy a house from the original builder and get a waranty. And people had a choice, and the people who wanted to give away houses did, and the people who wanted to sell houses did, and things worked really well. Then Tony (who took over after Bill left), saw his research grant was running out, and decided to give away houses, too. Building parts of houses was getting boring, and money was running out, so it was decided to eliminate the original builder's foundation and give away the house with a new foundation. And the original foundation was replaced, beam by beam, block by block, nail by nail, until nothing was left but Tony's materials, pretty much in the shape of the original foundation. Then Tony said "I'm quitting building, but I'm going to give away the whole house, because it's all mine now." But Betty, who inherited the business from her father, said "wait a minute, you are using your materials, but it's dad's design. When dad let you use his foundation for reaserch you agreed to keep the tricks to yourself. And you are calling your houses 'Dennis_built by Tony' which confuses people and infringes my trademark." "Did not!" said Tony. "You're trying to profit on my materials." "Did so!" said Betty, "and you're trying to steal my ideas and give them away because you don't want to build houses any more." "Not!" "Did!" Finally Betty said, "Let's get Bob the builder to look at your house and mine, and see if you are still using any of my materials, or things built from my blueprint, or if the whole foundation still looks like mine." But Tony said, "No, I only want to have him look at the bay windows and the floor joists, or you can pick three details to let him think about. And by the way I want to use my good buddy, Elmo, who used to work for me and really knows my stuff." And it came to pass that Tony and Betty never did agree, and Betty sued Tony. People who bought houses thought both of them were being jerks, and bought cheap mass produced Quonsett huts from _Bill's Huts_. They were ugly, but had only one room and were easy to use because you can't get lost in one room, no matter how little effort you make to learn your way around. And the new Quonsett huts had lots of windows, which really didn't add much, but made people think they were neat even though there was nothing inside to see. So Tony and Betty hurt each other's reputation, lost business to inferior products, and their lawyers lived happily and prosperously ever after. Any resemblence to persons living, dead, foolish or greedy, or any company or organization is in the mind of the reader. This story is my personal fantasy and should not be confused with fact or policy of anyone but me. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile. From: de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.163425.3373@ornl.gov> Date: 6 Aug 92 16:34:25 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> Sender: de5@ORNL.GOV (SILL D E) Organization: Oak Ridge National Laboratory Lines: 56 In article <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: >The original builder trademarked his house as "Dennis_built." > >People liked that, and started calling the the new design "Dennis_built by >Bill." > > The original builder liked some of the new features, and added them to >basic plan. But his trademark became "New_improved_Dennis_built", not "Dennis_and_Bill_built", giving Bill no credit for the features he designed. >And the original foundation was replaced, beam by beam, block by block, >nail by nail, until nothing was left but Tony's materials, pretty much in >the shape of the original foundation. Then Tony said "I'm quitting >building, but I'm going to give away the whole house, because it's all >mine now." This is the crux of the matter, I think: Was it a block-by-block replacement, was it a new design meeting the same specs, or a hybrid? > Finally Betty said, "Let's get Bob the builder to look at your house >and mine, and see if you are still using any of my materials, or things >built from my blueprint, or if the whole foundation still looks like >mine." So why doesn't Betty do that? She doesn't need Tony's permission. And, again, what does the law protect? Materials? Designs? Appearance? Trademarks? (I think it protects materials and designs (copyright) and trademarks, but I don't think appearance is protected.) > And it came to pass that Tony and Betty never did agree, and Betty >sued Tony. People who bought houses thought both of them were being >jerks, and bought cheap mass produced Quonsett huts from _Bill's Huts_. I think this is carrying it a little too far, but I do think such infighting and legal uncertainty hurts the business. I hope it doesn't take years to resolve this issue. >They were ugly, but had only one room and were easy to use because you >can't get lost in one room, no matter how little effort you make to >learn your way around. And the new Quonsett huts had lots of windows, >which really didn't add much, but made people think they were neat even >though there was nothing inside to see. I love it. :-) > So Tony and Betty hurt each other's reputation, lost business to >inferior products, and their lawyers lived happily and prosperously ever >after. -- Dave Sill (de5@ornl.gov) For every Bill Joy there is a Kirk McKusick. Martin Marietta Energy Systems For every Bill Gates there is a Richard Workstation Support Stallman. --Paul Graham Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM> Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug6.163425.3373@ornl.gov> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 20:03:42 GMT Lines: 28 I think Bill Davidsen's analogy is the best so far, at least it agrees the best with how I interpret all the documents published so far. In <1992Aug6.163425.3373@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes: >In article <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: >>And the original foundation was replaced, beam by beam, block by block, >>nail by nail, until nothing was left but Tony's materials, pretty much in >>the shape of the original foundation. Then Tony said "I'm quitting >>building, but I'm going to give away the whole house, because it's all >>mine now." >This is the crux of the matter, I think: Was it a block-by-block >replacement, was it a new design meeting the same specs, or a hybrid? I predict this is what the lawsuit will be about. Most likely it will define the fine line that can be the difference between "block-by-block replacement" and "a new design meeting the same specs" and decide if the former is legal. (the later is legal if you are Phoenix, but not if you are Lotus, but that's another story). Tom -- Tom Limoncelli -- tal@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- tal@plts.uucp (play) I know what I'm going to do about this whole USL vs. BSDI law suit! "Hello, DEC? Send me a copy of OpenVMS, please!" From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7123@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 10 Aug 92 12:16:16 GMT References: <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug6.163425.3373@ornl.gov> <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM> Sender: news@aiai.ed.ac.uk Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 35 In article <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM> tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes: >I think Bill Davidsen's analogy is the best so far, at least >it agrees the best with how I interpret all the documents >published so far. > >In <1992Aug6.163425.3373@ornl.gov> de5@ORNL.GOV (Dave Sill) writes: > >>In article <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: >>>And the original foundation was replaced, beam by beam, block by block, >>>nail by nail, until nothing was left but Tony's materials, pretty much in >>>the shape of the original foundation. Then Tony said "I'm quitting >>>building, but I'm going to give away the whole house, because it's all >>>mine now." >>This is the crux of the matter, I think: Was it a block-by-block >>replacement, was it a new design meeting the same specs, or a hybrid? We already know that many things in BSD couldn't be block-by-block replacements, because those features of the OS weren't in the code Berkeley got from AT&T in any form. We also know that there can be, at most, only a very small part of the OS that was a beam-by-beamm, block-by-block, nail-by-nail replacement, because the people at berkeley made improvements everywhere, drawing on a wide range of sources. We also know that many, many things about AT&T Unix have been published in books ands papers and hence cannot count as secrets of any sort, much less as trade secrets. All of this is ignored in the analogy quoted above. That is why it is not a good analogy. -- jd From: ken@sugra.uucp (Kenneth Ng) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug11.013001.5139@sugra.uucp> Date: 11 Aug 92 01:30:01 GMT References: Organization: Private Computer, Totowa NJ Lines: 46 In article <1992Aug7.200342.13878@Warren.MENTORG.COM:, tal@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli) writes: : I think Bill Davidsen's analogy is the best so far, at least : it agrees the best with how I interpret all the documents : published so far. : >This is the crux of the matter, I think: Was it a block-by-block : >replacement, was it a new design meeting the same specs, or a hybrid? : I predict this is what the lawsuit will be about. Most likely it will : define the fine line that can be the difference between "block-by-block : replacement" and "a new design meeting the same specs" and decide if : the former is legal. (the later is legal if you are Phoenix, but not : if you are Lotus, but that's another story). To throw yet another wrinkle into the soup, what about a new design meeting new specs that are a superset of the old specs? Several times I have been given the task of taking programs that have been modified umteen times, with all kinds of patches and tweaks and additions put into it (including tweaks that removed other tweaks), and given the task of adding yet another change. After spending a week trying to analysize the routines, I give up, write up a black box specification, and then reimplement the beast, or part of the beast. Along the way I clean up the interface, make it more general purpose, and expand various facilities. By the time I am done, the program has the added facilities, runs faster, is structured better, and has fewer bugs. Now, who does this program belong to? The original person? Myself? The summation of everyone who has ever seen the code? Back to the house analogy, lets say the original was a straw house. At what point do should the original person loose their patent on invent the house? When I make it of wood? Of brick? When I add running water? Electricity? Indoor carpeting? A kitchen? Oven? Microwave and other appliances? Solar heating? Weatherstripping? How about an apartment building? A skyscraper? How about proposed Space Station Freedom? Yes, it is still a house, but to say it belongs exclusively to the original housebuilder, and that everything in the new houses belongs to the original housebuilder is silly. If AT&T is to keep their stranglehold on UNIX(R), I submit that they are a monopoly and should be made a public utility just like water, gas, and electricity. I have little objection to AT&T keeping their trademark, and if they do nothing to improve their product and just want to make money. But I take *GREAT* exception to anyone trying to establish a defacto monopoly and engaging in torpedoing the competition in a manor almost as disgusting as Apple and Microsoft. -- Kenneth Ng Please reply to kdn5669@hertz.njit.edu for now. Apple and AT&T lawsuits: Just say NO! From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7090@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 6 Aug 92 17:13:44 GMT References: <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 40 In article <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk>, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > >| But I suspect there's no way some people can be convinced. >| AT&T just owns Unix, in their opinion, and anyone who implements >| a Unix owes AT&T. > > Correct. Anyone who implements an o/s which they sell (or give away) >as UNIX, and which is based on AT&T code, owes AT&T. If it's based on AT&T code in some legally protected sense, they owe AT&T even if they don't call it "UNIX". That much is clear to everyone. As for your extended analogy, I disagree. I think my "person who wrote the 1st compiler" analogy posted earlier is closer (though still not entirely right). > Early BSD versions came to us as >patch tapes to be applied to our licensed AT&T source code. Hard to >argue that they were not based on UNIX. No one claims early versions weren't based on AT&T code. However, they were not based on "UNIX", because there was not one unique things that was UNIX. >started calling the the new design "Dennis_built by Bill." BSD was not called "UNIX built by Berkeley". > the best >ideas moved back and forth, so all the people living in the houses had >better homes. Almost all of the interesting ideas in BSD were from Berkeley. And so on. -- jd From: terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.175618.20419@gateway.novell.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 17:56:18 GMT References: <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@gateway.novell.com (NetNews) Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT Lines: 54 Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com In article <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > Finally Betty said, "Let's get Bob the builder to look at your house >and mine, and see if you are still using any of my materials, or things >built from my blueprint, or if the whole foundation still looks like >mine." > > But Tony said, "No, I only want to have him look at the bay windows >and the floor joists, or you can pick three details to let him think >about. And by the way I want to use my good buddy, Elmo, who used to >work for me and really knows my stuff." Hey! Didn't these guys live in California or something?!? Yeah! I remember now! I thought Tony said "This house is a model house, which I expect people to be able to add on to. Anybody who wants to pay me what would be a days rent in one of your houses, Betty, can walk all over it and look at it and rip out the joists and see if anything, even the knot holes, match those of any other house. Even you". And Betty paid Tony, and walked all over the house, bashing things with her crowbar, and generally wrecked the house for anybody who wanted to buy it and live there, but never pointed at the windows or doors or even the insulation or the smallest carpet tack to say "that was daddy's!". And no one wanted Tony's house any more, even though Tony had taken a great deal of pride in his work and put forth a lot of effort, because it had Betty's crow-bar marks all over it. And now Betty wants you to buy her ugly, expensive pre-fab houses that you can't even put your own appliances in without paying her $150,000 for the right to do so (and Betty's appliances suck). Face it: Betty is a manager, not a house builder like her dad, and probably couldn't build a house someone would choose to live in to save her life. Her only choice (besides learning to build houses, which she refuses to do, since she might get her hands dirty or break a nail) is to put real house builders out of work. Then she can sell her cracker-boxes that no one wants to buy any way, because that's all that's left. And Betty's friends get all upset when the people forced to live in her cracker-boxes call her a bitch. Like Mr. Davidsen says: Any resemblence to persons living, dead, foolish or greedy, or any company or organization is in the mind of the reader. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From: phil@Shiva.COM (Phil Budne) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.192458.29390@Shiva.COM> Date: 7 Aug 92 19:24:58 GMT References: <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug6.175618.20419@gateway.novell.com> Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: Shiva Corporation, Cambridge Ma, USA Lines: 46 In article <1992Aug6.175618.20419@gateway.novell.com> terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes: > Face it: Betty is a manager, not a house builder like her dad, and >probably couldn't build a house someone would choose to live in to save >her life. Her only choice (besides learning to build houses, which she >refuses to do, since she might get her hands dirty or break a nail) is to put >real house builders out of work. Then she can sell her cracker-boxes that >no one wants to buy any way, because that's all that's left. Actually, Betty sells houses based on ones built by numerous uncles and cousins of hers (from places like Columbus and Cincinati), rather than hastle over whose idea of a house to build (which by this time has litle to do with Dad's original small, but coherent designs) they build houses with dormers and extensions hanging out every which way. Since then, Bill who has gone on to form an immensely popular construction firm worked with Betty (and her team of builders) to integrate their ideas; the results of which has wheels and wings. Rick (who used to live in Pittsburgh, but has been rumored to have gone to Washington to work for a different Bill, who mass produces sand boxes) came up with an idea to build one of Bill's houses on stilts without a masonry foundation. Steve (a former toy manufacturer) has built some deluxe houses (which are cubical and painted black). Steve's houses were supposed to replace everyone elses, but didn't. Did I mention Richard (who sleeps in a computer laboratory) formed the "Free House Foundation" to build houses that anyone can live in, but nobody can own? Other big builders who had made all of their money building jails, decided to band together to create a bulldozer which they called the "Open House Foundation" (not to be confused with the _Free_ House Foundation) to counteract the threat that Betty & Bill's joint venture might dominate the market for edifices. OHF based their house design on Rick's. OHF was never intended to build houses; they do sell kits, but mostly they sell just windows. Recently Bill has decided to sell his houses without doorknobs (``Not everyone needs doorknobs, and its more "open" to not charge people who don't need doorknobs for them''). I think I'll go live in a tent. -Phil Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: hpeyerl@novatel.cuc.ab.ca (Herb Peyerl) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug11.163038.5029@novatel.cuc.ab.ca> Organization: "NovAtel Communications Ltd." X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3 References: <1992Aug7.192458.29390@Shiva.COM> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 16:30:38 GMT Lines: 32 phil@Shiva.COM (Phil Budne) writes: : In article <1992Aug6.175618.20419@gateway.novell.com> terry@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes: : Other big builders who had made all of their money building jails, : decided to band together to create a bulldozer which they called the : "Open House Foundation" (not to be confused with the _Free_ House : Foundation) to counteract the threat that Betty & Bill's joint venture : might dominate the market for edifices. OHF based their house design : on Rick's. OHF was never intended to build houses; they do sell kits, : but mostly they sell just windows. I think you left out that what OHF really sells are new and untried innovations in house building.. ie: They will sell you unique forms of new plumbing and electricity but you need to build the foundation and walls yourself. : Recently Bill has decided to sell his houses without doorknobs (``Not : everyone needs doorknobs, and its more "open" to not charge people who : don't need doorknobs for them''). : : I think I'll go live in a tent. Actually, you can buy a tent from a corporation called MicroHouse. Their tents are small so even though you have a HUGE plot of land, you can only put one tent on it at a time.. And once you have the tent set up, you can have children but only one family member may be awake in the tent at a time; everyone else must sleep. But be careful; occasionally, these tents will fall down inexplicably. -- "I was early to finish | hpeyerl@novatel.cuc.ab.ca | I brew | I was late to start, I | peyerlh@cuug.ab.ca | there- | might be an adult, but | #define JANITOR "Network Administrator"| fore I | I'm a minor at heart." | JANITOR, NovAtel Communications Ltd.| AM. | Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug12.042216.15294@fcom.cc.utah.edu> Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT) References: <1992Aug7.192458.29390@Shiva.COM> <1992Aug11.163038.5029@novatel.cuc.ab.ca> Date: Wed, 12 Aug 92 04:22:16 GMT Lines: 35 In article <1992Aug11.163038.5029@novatel.cuc.ab.ca> hpeyerl@novatel.cuc.ab.ca (Herb Peyerl) writes: >: Recently Bill has decided to sell his houses without doorknobs (``Not >: everyone needs doorknobs, and its more "open" to not charge people who >: don't need doorknobs for them''). >: >: I think I'll go live in a tent. > >Actually, you can buy a tent from a corporation called MicroHouse. Their >tents are small so even though you have a HUGE plot of land, you can >only put one tent on it at a time.. And once you have the tent set up, >you can have children but only one family member may be awake in the tent >at a time; everyone else must sleep. But be careful; occasionally, these >tents will fall down inexplicably. >-- >"I was early to finish | hpeyerl@novatel.cuc.ab.ca | I brew | >I was late to start, I | peyerlh@cuug.ab.ca | there- | >might be an adult, but | #define JANITOR "Network Administrator"| fore I | >I'm a minor at heart." | JANITOR, NovAtel Communications Ltd.| AM. | Actually, I'd love to take credit for the "Open House Foundation", put it has been incorrectly attributed to me. The real owner (I think) is Phil Budne. Thanks for the thought, though, Herb. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- terry@icarus.weber.edu "I have an 8 user poetic license" - me ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: mellon@ncd.com (Ted Lemon) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 7 Aug 92 21:22:58 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.n yu.edu> <7066@skye.ed.ac.uk><1992Aug6.135607.5620@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@NCD.COM Organization: Network Computing Devices, Inc. Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: pepper In-reply-to: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM's message of 6 Aug 92 13:56:07 GMT One important observation that seems to have been missed here is that your analogy is irrelevant anyway, because there is no protection for the design of a foundation other than the copyright on the plans. Architects have been granted some copyright protection on complete works, but I don't think anybody's ever been granted a copyright on a building foundation as an architectural work (as opposed to an actual building plan, which can be copyrighted). _MelloN_ -- mellon@ncd.com Member, League for Programming Freedom | To learn how software patents could cost you your right to program, contact the LPF - league@prep.ai.mit.edu From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 5 Aug 92 16:52:05 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 18 In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they >even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out >of their money. Even if my characterization (in other messages) of how much was done at Berkeley is wrong, this is so far off the mark as to make me wonder whether it is being said in good faith. Note, btw, that Berkeley Unix existed before System V. Moreover, the initial System V had far fewer capabilities than Berkeley Unix. (Eg, no demand paging.) Much of the recent development of System V has been to add features from Berkeley Unix. Besides, re-implementing something is entirely reasonable. That's why there's more than one C compiler in the world (just for example). Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Organization: Guru Systems/Funware Department Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 08:48:43 GMT Message-ID: References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> Lines: 18 In <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: >In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >>BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they >>even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out >>of their money. >Besides, re-implementing something is entirely reasonable. >That's why there's more than one C compiler in the world >(just for example). Or DR-DOS (yuck). And I don't see Microsoft bitching about that either. -- Christoph Badura --- bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org ISO? Nicht immer, aber immer M-vfter. Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: tep@engr.uark.edu (Tim Peoples) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.000119.27796@engr.uark.edu> Sender: netnews@engr.uark.edu (NetNews Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: engr.uark.edu Reply-To: tep@engr.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Organiztion: University of Arkansas, Dept. of Computer Systems Engineering References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 00:01:19 GMT Lines: 31 bad@flatlin.ka.sub.org (Christoph Badura) writes: >In <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) writes: > >>In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >>>BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they >>>even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out >>>of their money. >>Besides, re-implementing something is entirely reasonable. >>That's why there's more than one C compiler in the world >>(just for example). > >Or DR-DOS (yuck). And I don't see Microsoft bitching about that >either. That's because Digital Research is just taking back what Microsoft stole from them when they **derived** MS-DOS from CP/M. -- +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Tim Peoples | The time has come the user said, | | tep@engr.uark.edu | to talk of many things; | | Dept. of Computer Systems Engineering| of simms and sockets and symaphores,| | University of Arkansas, Fayetteville | of processes and pings.... | +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | I need no disclaimer; nobody listens to what I have to say anyway!! | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (David R. Linn) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.150733.18974@vuse.vanderbilt.edu> Sender: news@vuse.vanderbilt.edu (News Manager) Nntp-Posting-Host: jester Organization: Vanderbilt University School of Engineering, Nashville, TN, USA References: <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug7.000119.27796@engr.uark.edu> Date: Fri, 7 Aug 1992 15:07:33 GMT Lines: 12 In article <1992Aug7.000119.27796@engr.uark.edu> tep@engr.uark.edu writes: > That's because Digital Research is just taking back what >Microsoft stole from them when they **derived** MS-DOS from CP/M. > I know I'm not the only one to notice distinct similarities between CP/M and various pre-VMS DEC OS's (notably RT-11). -- David R. Linn, System/Mail/News Manager | INET: drl@vuse.vanderbilt.edu Disclaimer: I speak only for myself | Phone: [+1] 615-343-6164 "Some do, some don't and that's the way of the world." From: dennis@nebulus.ampr.ab.ca (Dennis Breckenridge VE7TCP) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.154404.9374@nebulus.ampr.ab.ca> Date: 7 Aug 92 15:44:04 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <7067@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug7.000119.27796@engr.uark.edu> Organization: Alchemy Mindworks, Edmonton, Alberta Lines: 12 tep@engr.uark.edu (Tim Peoples) writes: > That's because Digital Research is just taking back what >Microsoft stole from them when they **derived** MS-DOS from CP/M. Now, now, DEC will get in here and take back what DR stole from RT-11 :-) -- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Stupidity, like Virtue, is it's own reward! Dennis S. Breckenridge dennis@nebulus.ampr.ab.ca VE7TCP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Summary: Utter Bullshit! Message-ID: <15o75lINNfi9@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 5 Aug 92 09:31:33 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> Sender: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association Lines: 59 NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: >[...] >It may be legal to license stuff for a while, re-implement it, make >sure `diff' fails and cut the supplier out of the action, but I cannot >say I would call it moral, nor is it conducive to an industry based on >open-systems. > >BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V (they >even advertised ITS-UNIX), claim it's USL-code-free, cut USL out >of their money. Uhh, what planet have you been on, Mike? UNIX is not equal to UNIX System V. Many many versions preceded or are in parallel to SV UNIX. BSD has been the "main competitor" in the overall architecture field, though Mach is now taking up much of that area. BSD UNIX started out based on early (mostly Version 7) UNIX code. It's incorporated some elements of later AT&T code (V32, if I recall right), but hasn't had any simmilarity with SV until AT&T made SVR4 which is mostly BSD compatable, in an attempt to attract people who like some BSD features in UNIX. Note that in that case, it was AT&T moving closer to BSD's standard, NOT the other way around 8-). BSDI (the company) took a version of BSD (the UNIX) that had had all origional traces of AT&T code cleansed out (but not replaced, so it wasn't a complete and functional OS) so it wasn't covered under AT&T/USL copyright per se (though it may be covered under "derived work", which is what the lawsuit is about) and wrote their own versions of the parts that had to be taken out. Thus, they had a complete OS whose origins clearly are in BSD UNIX, but that's clear of USL's code (we think... actual evidence to the contrary willingly accepted as correction by me & everyone else around here). BSDI didn't cut anyone out of anything; CSRG did if anyone did. Berkeley has said for years that they wanted to take the last AT&T code out and make an unencumbered version. That BSDI took a partial step in that process and completed it before CSRG did at Berkeley is entrepreneurial, not conspiratorial. If that whole process was unfair to AT&T/USL, then so be it, but it's been going on AND APPROVED OF IN GENERAL IN THE UNIX COMMUNITY for five years. Only now, as it's nearing completion in various forms (BSDI jumped the gun and made some money... darn, I hate it when people are smart and make money) do critics pop up. Is it bad for Open Systems? Depends. Lots of industry people like to define open systems as "We'll cross license with X, employ Y million programmers to do everything they do in our system, and keep it all proprietary.". I disagree. Open Systems are supposed to be one thing: Open. Where it's clear and agreed upon what the system does, and everyone can use the system. USL's UNIX is open but expensive. A free BSD would be the ultimate Open System. Mach is pretty good, as its popularity attests to. Open Systems is not an excuse to hire more programmers to keep everything the same. Open Systems is a whole way of OS life, not a buzzword. -george william herbert gwh@soda.berkeley.edu gwh@lurnix.com gwh@uchu.isu92.ac.jp until 28 aug From: rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Summary: comparing the code isn't enough Message-ID: <1992Aug5.231650@eklektix.com> Date: 5 Aug 92 23:16:50 GMT References: <15o75lINNfi9@agate.berkeley.edu> <25238@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado Lines: 18 torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: [discussion of "UNIX family tree"] >In any case, many of the things that make UNIX `commercial-grade' software >(this phrase is actually something of a put-down :-) ) today owe their >existence to CSRG. Examples include: ...[some key examples, by no means all of CSRG's contributions]... >What does this mean in terms of the suit? Not much, actually; further >speculation is pointless until we see more details. I think the additions to UNIX drawn from CSRG work *are* relevant to one particular issue: the idea that comparing BSD and USL code would tell whether there has been infringement. If you find a strong resemblance between code in SVR4 and code in Net 2, it's probably because the SVR4 code is derived from BSD work. For a comparison to make sense, you've got to go back to 32V and compare *that* to Net 2. -- Dick Dunn rcd@raven.eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado ...I'm not cynical - just experienced. From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7078@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 6 Aug 92 11:21:15 GMT References: <15o75lINNfi9@agate.berkeley.edu> <25238@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug5.231650@eklektix.com> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 8 In article <1992Aug5.231650@eklektix.com> rcd@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn) writes: > If you find a strong resemblance >between code in SVR4 and code in Net 2, it's probably because the SVR4 code >is derived from BSD work. For a comparison to make sense, you've got to go >back to 32V and compare *that* to Net 2. Unless the people who worked on BSD had access to later versons of AT&T Unix. Then AT&T/USL can use that to muddy the waters. From: sjc@cs.purdue.EDU (Steve Chapin) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <19210@ector.cs.purdue.edu> Date: 7 Aug 92 06:59:22 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15o75lINNfi9@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@cs.purdue.EDU Organization: Department of Computer Science, Purdue University Lines: 22 }} In article <15o75lINNfi9@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: }} }} BSD UNIX started out based on early (mostly Version 7) UNIX code. }} It's incorporated some elements of later AT&T code (V32, if I recall }} right), but hasn't had any simmilarity with SV until AT&T made SVR4 which }} is mostly BSD compatable, in an attempt to attract people who like some }} BSD features in UNIX. Note that in that case, it was AT&T moving closer }} to BSD's standard, NOT the other way around 8-). I've been waiting for someone to mention that. The fast-file system, sockets, mbufs, etc. are all Berkeley-isms. Who's taking methods and concepts from whom? (Not that I know if USL's code includes them; heaven forbid me from ever looking at it; it just strikes me as odd that AT&T had to concede that Berkeley had built a better UNIX, and then is suing them for doing so). }} -george william herbert sjc@cs.purdue.edu Steve Chapin Today's Grammar Lesson: Hear, hear! Who's here who knows whose booze this is? If I don't want it in my back yard, I don't want it. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug5.202419.15097@pony.Ingres.COM> Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems. References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 5 Aug 92 20:24:19 GMT Lines: 8 Michael Kandall writes: > BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V Excuse me, your ignorance is showing. -- Jon Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM's message of 5 Aug 92 20: 24:19 GMT Message-ID: Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> <1992Aug5.202419.15097@pony.Ingres.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 18:39:28 GMT Lines: 13 >>>>> On 5 Aug 92 20:24:19 GMT, jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) said: Jon> Michael Kandall writes: > BDSI's intentions are clear. Re-implement USL's UNIX System V Jon> Excuse me, your ignorance is showing. Jon> -- Jon Jon> Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com I stand corrected. Mike --- From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 6 Aug 1992 22:26:29 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 27 Message-ID: <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu In article kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: > It may be legal to license stuff for a while, re-implement it, make > sure `diff' fails and cut the supplier out of the action, but I cannot > say I would call it moral, nor is it conducive to an industry based on > open-systems. Come on, it's been at least 10 years since there has been any connection between AT&T Unix and BSD Unix. AT&T did the original design, and profited from it for quite a while. If they had the same commitment to good design and clean implementation that Ritchie and Thompson had at the start, and later the CSRG, they could compete with BSD in the marketplace instead of having to send lawyers after it. You claim that AT&T is entitled to profit from their design work. This is certainly true, and the mechanism for this is called "making a good implementation and getting on the market before the competition". It's absurd to claim that they are entitled to royalties from anything remotely based on their work for the rest of time. How many car companies do you think pay royalties to the descendants of Henry Ford? There is another issue here. Is AT&T claiming that BSD resembles SysV? If it does, it's probably because they copied BSD, and not vice versa. Unless I'm mistaken, BSD is based on V7, and I seriously doubt that Bill Joy and Mike Karels spent long nights poring over SysV code to see how they did VM or TCP/IP. Wayne From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 7 Aug 92 00:16:21 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: usenet@world.std.com (Mr USENET himself) Organization: The World Lines: 40 In-Reply-To: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU's message of 6 Aug 1992 22:26:29 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: ussr.std.com >I seriously doubt >that Bill Joy and Mike Karels spent long nights poring over SysV code >to see how they did VM or TCP/IP. Not to mention that SysV (pre-SVR4) was basically a rip-off of 4.1BSD, right down to the 1K file system. That's the sick thing. The descendancy between V6/V7 and SysV is not at all direct. SysVR1 basically incorporated most of 4.1BSD, added some things from their SysIII like shared mem/semaphores/msg_queues (abominations if I ever saw one) and shipped it as their own. Now they've done basically the same thing, tried to save a basically ugly duckling of an OS (SVR3) which was barely useable, and only by gurus (due to the fragile file system), by adding back in all the CSRG stuff that made companies like Sun major players, FFS, fsck, job control, TCP/IP (yeah, there was really no networking in SVR3, Flash! AT&T recognizes that networking is useful and that Ronald Reagan has beat Jimmy Carter!) and called it SVR4. But it's a mess. CSRG should be suing USL, not vice versa. The problem is that USL+AT&T never really made a buck off of Unix, in fact, they lost billions on it, so why bother. Pathetic bunch. In the end, that's the real concern here. Some of us have real work to do, regardless of these legal bullyings. I wouldn't run my business on SVR4, and I don't, and my business relies on good Unix. If AT&T can't understand that then they're doomed no matter how many lawyers they hire. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD From: mike@majestix.cs.uoregon.edu (Michael John Haertel) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug7.183051.1223@cs.uoregon.edu> Date: 7 Aug 92 18:30:51 GMT References: <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> Sender: news@cs.uoregon.edu (Netnews Owner) Organization: University of Oregon Computer and Information Sciences Dept. Lines: 29 In article bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >Not to mention that SysV (pre-SVR4) was basically a rip-off of 4.1BSD, >right down to the 1K file system. > >That's the sick thing. The descendancy between V6/V7 and SysV is not >at all direct. SysVR1 basically incorporated most of 4.1BSD, added >some things from their SysIII like shared mem/semaphores/msg_queues >(abominations if I ever saw one) and shipped it as their own. Completely bogus. About the only thing of Berkeley descent in early system V, as far as I can tell, was "vi" and the termcap database. No job control, no csh. No networking, no VM system. The "Berkeley" 1K file system was really the Bell Labs FS with the block size changed from 512 bytes to 1K. The System V folks were perfectly capable of doing this for themselves. And, for heaven's sakes, they didn't even *have* a VM system as late as System V.2 (at least the Vax version was still a swapping system), so how could they have taken Berkeley's? When they finally did get a VM system they rolled their own. (Note that in SysV.4 they replaced it with Sun's, which also didn't come from Berkeley.) One of USL's problems has always been that they have a very big "not invented here" attitude. I can just imagine some of their people kicking and screaming at the decision to "merge" with SunOS. On the other hand, with SysV.4, the criticism that they should be thanking Berkeley, not suing them, is certainly valid. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <92Aug7.142202edt.232@smoke.cs.toronto.edu> Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: 7 Aug 92 18:22:30 GMT Lines: 22 In article bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >The problem is that USL+AT&T never really made a buck off of Unix, in >fact, they lost billions on it, so why bother. > >Pathetic bunch. Not quite true. AT&T lost billions on the Computer Systems line of business. About 4 billion before they shut down and bought NCR to manage the remains. The hardware lines lost big bucks! The software organization was an interesting story. Without revealing too much, they almost broke even with combined revenues from licensing and documentation sales during the 80's. I can imagine some markting droid shaking in his boot at the fear of losing that kind of revenue to an outfit like BSDI. -- ================= No regrets, ever! | Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics For down that path, lies madness | tg@utstat.toronto.edu From: tim@sinix.UUCP (Tim Bissell) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug10.180623.17391@sinix.UUCP> Date: 10 Aug 92 18:06:23 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> Organization: SNI AG Muenchen, STO XS Lines: 20 In article <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: .... >remotely based on their work for the rest of time. How many car >companies do you think pay royalties to the descendants of Henry Ford? What *do* they teach in US schools? Every USan I have met is convinced that Henry Ford invented the motor car. Karl Benz (Mercedes-Benz; heard of them?) built and sold petrol-engined motor cars for *twenty* years before Ford applied mass production techniques to cars. Tens of companies were building cars before Ford came along. I think the same can be said for mt, mu operating systems. Tim -- Tim Bissell | best... tim@athen.uucp Work:+49 89 636 49542 | hmm... tim@athen.xsmuc.mchp.sni.de Home:+49 89 692 5263 | UK only... uk.co.uel!sinix!athen!tim From: lars@spectrum.CMC.COM (Lars Poulsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug11.052442.1318@spectrum.CMC.COM> Date: 11 Aug 92 05:24:42 GMT References: <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Aug10.180623.17391@sinix.UUCP> Organization: CMC Network Systems (Rockwell DCD), Santa Barbara, CA, USA Lines: 50 In article <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >>remotely based on their work for the rest of time. How many car >>companies do you think pay royalties to the descendants of Henry Ford? In article <1992Aug10.180623.17391@sinix.UUCP> tim@athen.xsmuc.mchp.sni.de (Tim Bissell) writes: >What *do* they teach in US schools? Every USan I have met is convinced >that Henry Ford invented the motor car. Karl Benz (Mercedes-Benz; heard of >them?) built and sold petrol-engined motor cars for *twenty* years before >Ford applied mass production techniques to cars. Tens of companies were >building cars before Ford came along. In the late 1870s, George Selden, a lawyer/inventor specializing in patents, heard about the development of the automobile in Europe. He realized that it was a product of the future, and "set his mind to working out the precise legal definition and wording of a patent that would give him the sole right to license and charge royalties on future automobile developments in America." Some twenty years later, with the auto industry beginning to show signs of life, he set up a partnership with a few wealthy Wall Street sharks and began asserting his "rights" with automakers. To his surprise, even the five biggest car manufacturers agreed to pay him royalties rather than go to court. By 1903, this royalty-paying alliance of carmakers had officially become the Association of Licensed Automobile Manufacturers (ALAM). Henry Ford, then a fledgling automaker, applied for membership ... and was refused. His reaction: "Let them try to put me out of business!" He took out ads telling his dealers that "the Selden patent does not cover any practicable machine", and dared Selden's group to take him to court. They did. Ford and the ALAM battled it out for six years. Then in 1909, a Federal judge determined that Selden's patent was valid; Selden and his allies legally owned ALL rights to the car. Immediately, carmakers that had held off on joining the ALAM - including the newly formed General Motors - fell into line to pay rpyalties. The ALAM magnanimously offered to settle cheaply with Ford, but Henry fought on. "There will be no let up in this legal fight", he announced angrily. Finally, on January 9, 1911, a Federal Court of Appeals ruled in Ford's favor. Selden and his cronies were forced to give up; the ALAM was never heard from again. -- from Uncle John's Second Bathroom Reader - St Martin's Press 1989. I thought there might be some lesson in this tale. -- / Lars Poulsen, SMTS Software Engineer Internet E-mail: lars@CMC.COM CMC (Rockwell Digital Systems) Telephone: +1-805-968-4262 Santa Barbara, CA 93117-5503 TeleFAX: +1-805-968-8256 Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: grant@bluemoon.rn.com (Grant DeLorean) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug11.142308.9415@bluemoon.rn.com> Organization: Blue Moon References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Aug10.180623.17391@sinix.UUCP> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 92 14:23:08 GMT Lines: 24 tim@sinix.UUCP (Tim Bissell) writes: >In article <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) writes: >.... >>remotely based on their work for the rest of time. How many car >>companies do you think pay royalties to the descendants of Henry Ford? >What *do* they teach in US schools? Every USan I have met is convinced >that Henry Ford invented the motor car. Karl Benz (Mercedes-Benz; heard of >them?) built and sold petrol-engined motor cars for *twenty* years before >Ford applied mass production techniques to cars. Tens of companies were >building cars before Ford came along. What they teach today is pathetic, but I think they do still say that Ford's contribution was the assembly line production scheme... >I think the same can be said for mt, mu operating systems. Naw, I don't think Ford or Benz had anything to do with this... ;-} -- \ Grant DeLorean - IHMSA & NRA Life Member - (grant@bluemoon.rn.com) / Tested on dolphins and assorted helpless furry creatures From: kuku@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de (Christoph Kukulies) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug17.095350.20172@Urmel.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE> Date: 17 Aug 92 09:53:50 GMT References: <5042.Aug412.31.0892@virtualnews.nyu.edu> <15s8ulINNgrc@agate.berkeley.edu> <1992Aug10.180623.17391@sinix.UUCP> <1992Aug11.142308.9415@bluemoon.rn.com> Sender: news@Urmel.Informatik.RWTH-Aachen.DE (Newsfiles Owner) Reply-To: kuku@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de Organization: I.Physikalisches Institut RWTH-Aachen Lines: 11 Nntp-Posting-Host: acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de >>that Henry Ford invented the motor car. Karl Benz (Mercedes-Benz; heard of ^^^^ Carl Benz --Khris ----------------------------------------------------------------- kuku@acds.physik.rwth-aachen.de *** Error code 1 Stop. From: mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com ("Mr. Mike" Passaretti) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 3 Aug 92 17:56:23 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: Mike Passaretti Organization: GE Aircraft Engines Lines: 40 In-Reply-To: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM's message of Mon, 3 Aug 1992 14:32:59 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: michelotti.ae.ge.com # In message <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com>, # davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: bd> It seems to me that the university was not really trying bd> to solve the issue when they refused to let a mutually bd> agreed third party examing the whole body of code. By bd> insisting on snapshots they give the appearance of trying bd> to hide something, even if they're not. I don't know about this. It seems to me if USL is asserting that they "know" there is AT&T code in there they ought to be able to say where, and a third party ought to be able to verify it. It's not like the BSD folks want to specify which pieces get looked at, I think they're just trying to limit the exposure so generic programming practice overlap can't be judged as being derivative. Of course, I could be being optimistic too... bd> When this started I thought the major legitimate bd> complaint was that BSDI was using the word UNIX pretty bd> freely in its literature. Now that so much effort is going bd> into avoiding a fair evaluation of the entire body of the bd> code, I am willing to accept the possibility the BSDI has bd> used some UNIX code in their implementation. As some wag recently commented, there aren't too many ways to write /bin/true. I know _I've_ never seen any AT&T source, but I'm willing to bet if you gave me 10 function calls to duplicate, I'd end up with at least on subroutine that looked pretty much like what they distribute. How many ways can you, for instance, chase a pointer through a string? bd> bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 - MM -- passaretti@crd.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!passaret mrmike@michelotti.ae.ge.com {whatever}!crdgw1!copernicus!michelotti!mrmike From: khera@cs.duke.edu (Vivek Khera) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 3 Aug 92 17:18:48 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@duke.cs.duke.edu Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: Duke University CS Dept., Durham, NC Lines: 17 Nntp-Posting-Host: thneed.cs.duke.edu In-reply-to: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM's message of 3 Aug 92 14:32:59 GMT X-Md4-Signature: d4507a7957897015178b2f0f1686108f In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: I still have an open mind on this, but that's a long way from my original assumption. Based on the old "if it walks like a duck..." addage, if a party behaves as if they have something to hide it certainly doesn't help me believe they don't. I suppose you'd also convict a person who refuses to answer a question based on his fifth amendment rights. What about when the police come knocking on your door wanting to search the place for illegal drugs without a warrant? If you don't let them in, does it make you believe that you are hiding some drugs? I don't think so. -- =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Vivek Khera, Gradual Student/Systems Guy Department of Computer Science Internet: khera@cs.duke.edu Box 90129 (MIME mail accepted) Durham, NC 27708-0129 (919)660-6528 Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug3.211724.10193@rwwa.COM> Sender: news@rwwa.COM (News Administrator) Nntp-Posting-Host: spooky Reply-To: witr@rwwa.com Organization: R.W. Withrow Associates References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Distribution: usa Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 21:17:24 GMT Lines: 24 In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: | By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance | of trying to hide something, even if they're not. Hide something? By having it posted on zillions of BBSs and Anonymous FTP sites? Get real! | It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and | dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. No. I dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from other people's UNIX software. AT&T/USL is trying to convert without consideration the fruits of thousands of non-AT&T/USL programmers' efforts. And (assuming this article is correct on this) I agree with CSRG rejecting a code comparison. When someone accuses you of stealing something it is up to the accuser to prove the theft, and not the accusee to prove the *lack* of theft. Let AT&T/USL *prove* their claims. -- --- Robert Withrow, R.W. Withrow Associates, Swampscott MA 01907 USA Tel: +1 617 598 4480, Fax: +1 617 598 4430, Net: witr@rwwa.COM From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com> Date: 4 Aug 92 12:45:23 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.211724.10193@rwwa.COM> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 27 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article <1992Aug3.211724.10193@rwwa.COM>, witr@rwwa.COM (Robert Withrow) writes: | In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: | | By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance | | of trying to hide something, even if they're not. | | Hide something? By having it posted on zillions of BBSs and Anonymous FTP | sites? Get real! Hide something such as the overall structure of the programs, modules, dataflow, etc. The best way to insure that no one will look at the overall picture is to ask them to select parts to examine. I'm not a lawyer, but if the overall structure is covered buy patent, copyright, or license, then the law should be enforced. I might help lobby to change the law (if I better understood just what it is), but I don't support the idea of getting code fore free or a nominal charge, hacking it, and then going into commercial competition with the original authors. Note that I'm not claiming that happened here, I'm just not trusting of anyone to the extent that I want to take their word, when USL offered to accept the opinion of a mutually agreed third party. The fact that BSDI wouldn't trust anyone in the world to look at their code in an unbiased way certainly suggests that they were not making the effort to avoid this suit. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COCOL. But I didn't compile. From: rv@cs.brown.edu (rodrigo vanegas) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 4 Aug 92 18:52:18 Organization: Dept. of Computer Science, Brown University Lines: 10 Distribution: usa Message-ID: References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.211724.10193@rwwa.COM> <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: tahoe.cs.brown.edu In-reply-to: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM's message of 4 Aug 92 12:45:23 GMT In article <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: > The fact that BSDI wouldn't trust anyone in the world to look at their > code in an unbiased way certainly suggests that they were not making the > effort to avoid this suit. Damn, am I glad i'm not a lawyer... rodrigo@brown.edu Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: rv@cs.brown.edu's message of 4 Aug 92 18:52:18 Message-ID: Sender: usenet@world.std.com (Mr USENET himself) Nntp-Posting-Host: ussr.std.com Organization: The World References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug3.211724.10193@rwwa.COM> <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com> Distribution: usa Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1992 03:36:37 GMT Lines: 28 (references almost lost) > The fact that BSDI wouldn't trust anyone in the world to look at their > code in an unbiased way certainly suggests that they were not making the > effort to avoid this suit. I thought it was UCB who declined. At any rate, did AT&T offer to pay for this open-ended code inspection? Should they have? It seems to me they had access to the code in question, if they had a claim they should have just specified what it was. The original poster was from General Electric. If I claimed that GE had code which may have derived from my code would you expect GE to immediately run and hire unbiased consultants on my demand? Or would you expect that the game is a little more complicated than that. That's the wonderful thing about throwing out reality, it makes all things equally possible. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD From: terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com> Date: 5 Aug 92 17:41:19 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> Sender: terry@thisbe (Terry Lambert) Distribution: usa Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT Lines: 33 Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com In article <1992Aug4.124523.23674@crd.ge.com>, davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: > > The fact that BSDI wouldn't trust anyone in the world to look at their > code in an unbiased way certainly suggests that they were not making the > effort to avoid this suit. Just as "the fact that someone claiming 5th amendment rights to Senator Joe McCarthy certainly suggests that they are communist sympathizers". The burden of proof is on the plaintif, not the defendant! If AT&T has a bone to pick, nothing prevents them from downloading the Net/2 (anonymously, like everyone else, so not even AT&T can tell who does and does not have the code) and doing the comparison. The financial obligation of evidence gathering is on AT&T, and is only *potentially* reimbursable as part of damages (maybe not even then). If the problem AT&T has is *specifically* with BSDI code, I am sure that BSDI would be happy to sell them a copy, or "trade software", as many companies do. Such a "trade" is admittedly equitable from AT&T's point of view, given that they place such equal value on the code that they claim BSDI code *is* their code. If it is, then they haven't given away anything that BSDI does not already have in it's posession. If not, they have received equal value. This should not be necessary, in any case, as AT&T claims that the infringing code path was by way of CSRG and UCB, not necessarily contamination of programmers at BSDI. Terry Lambert terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com terry@icarus.weber.edu --- Disclaimer: Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.140319.5931@crd.ge.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 14:03:19 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Distribution: usa Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 12 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article <1992Aug5.174119.1201@gateway.novell.com>, terry@thisbe.npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes: | This should not be necessary, in any case, as AT&T claims that the | infringing code path was by way of CSRG and UCB, not necessarily contamination | of programmers at BSDI. Yes, let me restate that in one posting I said BSDI when I meant CSRG. It was a slip of the acronym, not lack of understanding (or as one person implied some adgenda against BSDI). -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile. From: jds@cs.umd.edu (James da Silva) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <59408@mimsy.umd.edu> Date: 3 Aug 92 19:22:58 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@mimsy.umd.edu Organization: University of Maryland, Department of Computer Science Lines: 75 davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > What they imply in in the mind of the reader, but what they say sounds >true to me. They appear to be trying to swing public opinion against >USL, to bring pressure and cause damages (as in people buying osf1 or >BSD/386 on moral rather than technical grounds). I don't normally expect >this behavior of someone who expects to be upheld in court. But what about UNIGRAM-X's bit of yellow journalism, clearly fed by USL. By your own logic: "They appear to be trying to swing public opinion against BSDI, to bring pressure and cause damages (as in people buying SVR4 instead of BSD/386 on moral rather than technical grounds). I don't normally expect this behavior of someone who expects to be upheld in court." Anyway, what behavior _do_ you expect? Do you really believe that only guilty parties need worry in our legal system? USL has a huge advantage over BSDI in terms of their ability to harass BSDI to death with lawsuits. BSDI would be foolish to not in turn use one of their biggest weapons, public opinion, to beat USL about the head and shoulders for being the monopolistic, barren, ineffective, forgetful, shortsighted, lawyer-ridden buttheads that they are (in my own words and opinion :-). > It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >of trying to hide something, even if they're not. It is a bit circular to take at face value UNIGRAM-X's depiction of the events as the basis for your negative conclusions about incident, since the article was so clearly biased to begin with. Or do you have some direct knowledge of the circumstances of this third-party examination proposal? The idea projected in UNIGRAM-X's article --- that a reasonable USL, eager to do the right thing, approached the University to settle the matter out of court, but was rebuffed by those evil CSRG guys --- is laughable, and I can't believe you would fall for it. In the absence of more objective information about this proposed code review, or at least the other side of the story, it's premature to draw any conclusions about it. In my pro-CSRG bias I tend to think that the university was very smart to not give in to USL demands at this point. > I still have an open mind on this, but that's a long way from my >original assumption. Based on the old "if it walks like a duck..." >addage, if a party behaves as if they have something to hide it >certainly doesn't help me believe they don't. Perhaps you don't mean it to be so, but this is a dangerous attitude to take in general. Am I guilty of something if I refuse to allow the police into my house without a warrant? Am I guilty if I refuse to respond to questioning without a lawyer present? Am I guilty if I call the newspapers after being harassed? Not according to the U.S. Constitution. "Hmm, he refused to give up his constitutional rights; he _must_ be hiding something!" Analogously, I interpret BSDI and The Regents not as "acting guilty", but rather showing a good deal of legal and public-relations savvy. Innocent until proven guilty in this country, Bill; it is up to USL to prove the infringement, not up to CSRG to prove that they aren't guilty. By the way, does anyone have any information on who these UNIGRAM-X people are anyway? Is this a real newspaper or newsletter? Who owns them, and who is their intended audience? It was so badly written that I would have thought it a joke in other circumstances. "drug-happy hippy-freak Unix culture", indeed! "naive tech-weenies", indeed! Are the authors brave enough to show their faces here and admit to writing this piece of trash, or are they just going to continue lurking about? Harumph, Jaime ............................................................................ : Stand on my shoulders, : jds@cs.umd.edu : James da Silva : not on my toes. : uunet!mimsy!jds : Systems Design & Analysis Group From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 3 Aug 92 23:11:17 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <59408@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: usenet@world.std.com (Mr USENET himself) Organization: The World Lines: 13 In-Reply-To: jds@cs.umd.edu's message of 3 Aug 92 19:22:58 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: ussr.std.com I have to admit I've never heard of Unigram either, and it seems like I get every other (or have at one time or another) Unix related pub (not to mention that I tech-edit two.) Has anyone on this list ever seen this pub? Just a reality-check. -- -Barry Shein Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD From: hanson@pogo.fnal.gov (Steve Hanson) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 4 Aug 92 16:55:28 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <59408@mimsy.umd.edu> Sender: news@fnnews.fnal.gov Organization: FERMILAB, Batavia, IL Lines: 15 Nntp-Posting-Host: pogo.fnal.gov In bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: >I have to admit I've never heard of Unigram either, and it seems like >Has anyone on this list ever seen this pub? Just a reality-check. Yeah, I've seen sample issues at trade shows. As I remember it is the typical industry newsletter - a few pages long, full of "inside" news, incredibly overpriced. Mostly what I remember about seeing it is that I almost fainted when I saw the subscription price, but on the other hand I also publish a UNIX newsletter and I lose money hand over fist, so they probably know what they're doing. -- Steve Hanson - FERMILAB, Batavia, Il. hanson@pogo.fnal.gov or hanson@fnal.fnal.gov From: dj@godot.co.uk (DJ Walker-Morgan) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 5 Aug 92 16:45:31 GMT References: Sender: news@micromuse.co.uk Reply-To: dj@godot.co.uk Organization: MicroMuse - The SPARC dudes Lines: 31 Nntp-Posting-Host: godot In article 712947328@pogo, hanson@pogo.fnal.gov (Steve Hanson) writes: >In bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes: > > >>I have to admit I've never heard of Unigram either, and it seems like >>Has anyone on this list ever seen this pub? Just a reality-check. > >Yeah, I've seen sample issues at trade shows. As I remember it is the >typical industry newsletter - a few pages long, full of "inside" news, >incredibly overpriced. Mostly what I remember about seeing it is that >I almost fainted when I saw the subscription price, but on the other >hand I also publish a UNIX newsletter and I lose money hand over fist, >so they probably know what they're doing. Unigram is a weekly newsletter, derived from the same source as Computergram, the daily newletter. It's my first read in the morning and quite honestly it would be the first subscription I'd ensure at any company I worked for.... Even allowing for the rumours that are reprinted, there's always a lot of good hard information from detailing IBM announcements to who's doing deals with whom... And they always try to finish on a small "funny" item.... --- ============================================================================ dj@micromuse.co.uk |"In a perfect world we'd all sing in tune Voice +44-71-352-7774 | but this is reality so give some room" Fax +44-71-351-7834 | (Sir) William Bragg ------------------------+--------------------------------------------------- Non-standard Disclaimer : "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I wasn't there" From: zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <5486@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> Date: 4 Aug 92 08:32:24 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Organization: Manchester Computing Centre, Manchester, England, M13 9PL. Lines: 23 In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: > It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >of trying to hide something, even if they're not. > >-- >bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 As AT&T made the complaint with the explicit "you're using AT&T code/trade secrets" it is surely reasonable to ask that they specify which parts of the code contains the infringments. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. -- Geoff. Lane. Janet: zzassgl@uk.ac.mcc.uts UTS Sys Admin, Manchester Computing Centre, Oxford Rd, Manchester, M13 9PL From: tep@engr.uark.edu (Tim Peoples) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug5.003803.28740@engr.uark.edu> Date: 5 Aug 92 00:38:03 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <5486@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> Sender: netnews@engr.uark.edu (NetNews Administrator) Reply-To: tep@engr.uark.edu Organization: University of Arkansas Lines: 32 Nntp-Posting-Host: engr.uark.edu Organiztion: University of Arkansas, Dept. of Computer Systems Engineering zzassgl@uts.mcc.ac.uk (Geoff Lane) writes: >In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >> It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the >>issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the >>whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance >>of trying to hide something, even if they're not. >> >>-- >>bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 > > >As AT&T made the complaint with the explicit "you're using AT&T code/trade >secrets" it is surely reasonable to ask that they specify which parts of the >code contains the infringments. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. > I just finished reading the ammended complaint that added the Regents to the suit and from what I got out of it USL is not claiming that there are SPECIFIC PARTS that contain infingements, but that NET2, as a whole, is an infringement. So, go figure..... -- +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | Tim Peoples | The time has come the user said, | | tep@engr.uark.edu | to talk of many things; | | Dept. of Computer Systems Engineering| of simms and sockets and symaphores,| | University of Arkansas, Fayetteville | of processes and pings.... | +--------------------------------------+-------------------------------------+ | I need no disclaimer; nobody listens to what I have to say anyway!! | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <14488@ksr.com> Date: 5 Aug 92 11:39:08 EDT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <5486@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> <1992Aug5.003803.28740@engr.uark.edu> Sender: news@ksr.com Lines: 14 tep@engr.uark.edu (Tim Peoples) writes: >>As AT&T made the complaint with the explicit "you're using AT&T code/trade >>secrets" it is surely reasonable to ask that they specify which parts of the >>code contains the infringments. Otherwise it's a fishing expedition. > I just finished reading the ammended complaint that added the Regents >to the suit and from what I got out of it USL is not claiming that there >are SPECIFIC PARTS that contain infingements, but that NET2, as a whole, >is an infringement. So, go figure..... Ah, so they are claiming that the trade secret being stolen is the *concept* of a "UNIX operating system". Well, (to combine one of my favorite ancient cartoon catch-phrases with a more modern catch-phrase that I actually can't stand) "dat sounds logical....NOT!" From: hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 8 Aug 92 23:14:26 GMT References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <5486@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> <1992Aug5.003803.28740@engr.uark.edu> Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J. Lines: 56 tep@engr.uark.edu (Tim Peoples) writes: > I just finished reading the ammended complaint that added the Regents >to the suit and from what I got out of it USL is not claiming that there >are SPECIFIC PARTS that contain infingements, but that NET2, as a whole, >is an infringement. So, go figure..... Normally, when someone wants to implement a system that will compete with an existing system, they do everything possible to isolate the development effort from the existing system. If they need to look at the existing code, they have someone do it who is not part of the development team, and that person produces only functional specifications, what are then used by the developer. This is the "clean room" approach. Berekeley has done something interesting, for which there may be no legal precedent: they have started with another vendor's product, modified it, and then attempted to remove vestiges of the original. The reason this is legally dangerous is that when you start with someone else's product and modify it, what you have is a "derived work", which is still covered by the original copyright. The question is whether you can continue modifying it, and at the point where none of the original is left it becomes underived. If this has been litigated before, I haven't heard of it (which might not be surprising, since I'm not a lawyer). I could imagine that the status as a derived work would continue. Note also that Unix is made up of a number of files. Is the copyright only on the individual files, or on the work as a whole? If it's on the individual files, then one could purify the code by rewriting it file by file. But I would guess ATT will claim that it is on the work as a whole. Thus rewriting it file by file might not remove the status of BSD as whole as a derived work. If this is the argument they are going to use, then even a comparison that showed there to be no similarity might not be conclusive. This may be the reason that the suits do not contain detailed lists of where copying occured (though it's not clear to me that they would in any case), and the reason that ATT is not interested in comparing only snapshots. The issue is also complicated by the fact that ATT seems to be claiming both trade secret and copyright protection for the same work. Since copyright protection is intended only for published works, it's not clear whether this is valid. In my view, this case is full of strange and interesting legal issues, which may make much of the discussion here irrelevant. I have a suspicion that the decision may turn on details of these issues, and not on what computer scientists would regard as the substance: whether BSD has any longer any ATT code in it. I've looked at some decisions in areas like this, and about all one can say with any certainty is that many judges have a very different view of the world than we do, and that it's hard to predict even what questions they will consider relevant, much less what conclusions they will come to. There are some signs that the much of the legal profession is beginning to realize what a disaster they are creating, and that they are moving towards a sensible view. It would be nice to think that this case would be handled in such a light. But I'm afraid I don't trust our legal system that far. Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Organization: Taronga Park BBS References: <5486@mccuts.uts.mcc.ac.uk> <1992Aug5.003803.28740@engr.uark.edu> Date: Tue, 11 Aug 1992 02:31:41 GMT Lines: 10 In article hedrick@dumas.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) writes: >Note also that Unix is made up of a number of files. Is the copyright >only on the individual files, or on the work as a whole? The copyright notices are on individual files. -- `-_-' Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX +1 713 568 0480/1032 Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:28:19 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News) Nntp-Posting-Host: 137.23.47.37 Lines: 32 In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: ) It seems to me that the university was not really trying to solve the )issue when they refused to let a mutually agreed third party examing the )whole body of code. By insisting on snapshots they give the appearance )of trying to hide something, even if they're not. ) When this started I thought the major legitimate complaint was that )BSDI was using the word UNIX pretty freely in its literature. Now that )so much effort is going into avoiding a fair evaluation of the entire )body of the code, I am willing to accept the possibility the BSDI has )used some UNIX code in their implementation. Given that the snapshots, as another poster stated, were according to the article to be specified by *USL*, I would like to know if you still hold this opinion. My impression of the significance of the 'snapshot' idea was that the fundamental issue was whether the code was to be evaluated on a "look and feel" basis (which appears to me to be a totally fictitous and created principle - apparently due to Apple(tm) lawyers, and not having any previous basis in law) or actual copying. I haven't seen anything yet to convince me that there is any actual code copying. I'm fairly sure that BSDI or UCB would be ready, willing and able to re-write any questionable sections of code that AT&T had any objections to - probably cheaper than defending a law suit. I personally strongly doubt actual code-copying is a real issue here. From: karl@NeoSoft.com (Karl Lehenbauer) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> Date: 5 Aug 92 15:01:56 GMT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> Organization: NeoSoft Communications Services -- (713) 684-5900 Lines: 4 Why can't USL just buy a copy of BSD/386 and compare it themselves? -- -- Email info@NeoSoft.com for info on getting interactive Internet access. "What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolph Hitler (1889-1945) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug5.203748.16361@pony.Ingres.COM> Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems. References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> Date: 5 Aug 92 20:37:48 GMT Lines: 14 Karl Lehenbauer asks: > Why can't USL just buy a copy of BSD/386 and compare it themselves? Of course they can. No doubt they have. Just as they could and doubtless did ftp the NET2 distribution and examine it. A better question, therefore, is what is stopping them from telling us exactly what they think was copied. -- Jon Jon Krueger jpk@ingres.com Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi From: d86-emh@dront.nada.kth.se (E Magnus Hulthen) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM's message of 5 Aug 92 20:37:48 GMT Message-ID: Sender: usenet@kth.se (Usenet) Nntp-Posting-Host: dront.nada.kth.se Organization: Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug5.203748.16361@pony.Ingres.COM> Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 13:02:57 GMT Lines: 18 In article <1992Aug5.203748.16361@pony.Ingres.COM> jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger) writes: Karl Lehenbauer asks: > Why can't USL just buy a copy of BSD/386 and compare it themselves? Of course they can. No doubt they have. Just as they could and doubtless did ftp the NET2 distribution and examine it. Lets get real scary... What if they did ftp NET2, copied the code into their UNIX. And now claims that the BSDI code was written by USL. Thus the code written by BSDI is now "owned" by USL. Horrendus, but extremely plausible depending on how honest the intentions of USL are. /Magnus Hulthen d86-emh@nada.kth.se From: faustus@ygdrasil.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Wayne A. Christopher) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Date: 6 Aug 1992 22:40:02 GMT Organization: University of California at Berkeley Lines: 12 Message-ID: <15s9o2INNgv3@agate.berkeley.edu> References: <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug5.203748.16361@pony.Ingres.COM> NNTP-Posting-Host: ygdrasil.cs.berkeley.edu In article d86-emh@dront.nada.kth.se (E Magnus Hulthen) writes: > What if they did ftp NET2, copied the code into their UNIX. And now > claims that the BSDI code was written by USL. Thus the code written > by BSDI is now "owned" by USL. Horrendus, but extremely plausible > depending on how honest the intentions of USL are. That would be real funny. They'd certainly get caught and they would probably have to pay BSDI damages for fraud. I would think that the comparison would have to be between NET2 and the last version of UNIX that AT&T shipped to Berkeley, which I suspect was about 10 years ago. Wayne From: sinster@cse.ucsc.edu (Darren Senn) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <15ufr1INN63k@darkstar.UCSC.EDU> Date: 7 Aug 92 18:36:17 GMT References: <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug5.203748.16361@pony.Ingres.COM> Organization: University of California, Santa Cruz (CE/CIS Boards) Lines: 13 NNTP-Posting-Host: lyell.ucsc.edu In article d86-emh@dront.nada.kth.se (E Magnus Hulthen) writes: >[...] Horrendus, but extremely plausible >depending on how honest the intentions of USL are. Pieper (sp?) has publicly stated that he doesn't care about software, and he just wants to make money (the reference is about 45 posts back). This makes him intrinsically untrustworthy. Unfortunately, in the US we can't take that into account: only evidence presented by either the prosecution or the defense is admissible in court, and not all of that. -- Darren Senn Phone: (408) 479-1521 sinster@scintilla.capitola.ca.us Snail: 1785 Halterman #1 Wasurenaide -- doko e itte mo soko ni anata wa iru yo. Santa Cruz, Ca 95062 From: davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 14:01:00 GMT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> Sender: usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) Reply-To: davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY Lines: 16 Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com In article <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com>, karl@NeoSoft.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: | Why can't USL just buy a copy of BSD/386 and compare it themselves? Because no one would accept them as unbiased. If a third party, agreed on by all parties, says "no copy," then it makes the suit hard to press, since USL agreed that the person was acceptable. If the third party says that the code is different but the disign is the same (new words, same melody), then USL will probably prevail. I wouldn't accept USL's word for it (and don't), but I would rather have a third party form an opinion than spend year's in court, and try to educate a jury enough to be able to understand the issues, let alone decide them. -- bill davidsen, GE Corp. R&D Center; Box 8; Schenectady NY 12345 I admit that when I was in school I wrote COBOL. But I didn't compile. From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7091@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 6 Aug 92 17:16:05 GMT References: <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 10 In article <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com>, karl@NeoSoft.com (Karl Lehenbauer) writes: >| Why can't USL just buy a copy of BSD/386 and compare it themselves? > > Because no one would accept them as unbiased. They don't have to. USL can say "it's this code right here", and anyone as unbiased as you'd like can look to see if they're correct. From: jfw@ksr.com (John F. Woods) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <14551@ksr.com> Date: 6 Aug 92 13:45:02 EDT References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@ksr.com Lines: 11 davidsen@ariel.crd.GE.COM (william E Davidsen) writes: > I wouldn't accept USL's word for it (and don't), but I would rather >have a third party form an opinion than spend year's in court, and try >to educate a jury enough to be able to understand the issues, let alone >decide them. The problem is ensuring that the third party knows what "similar because of infringement" and "similar because of functional necessity" are; if USL is allowed to pick the ground rules that the third party will follow, "has a file system" could be grounds for saying "they copied it"... Presumably part of the court battle will be to draw the line. From: ken@eies2.njit.edu (Kenneth Ng) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug8.180004.20164@njitgw.njit.edu> Date: 8 Aug 92 18:00:04 GMT References: <1992Aug4.212819.19417@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> <1992Aug05.150156.1019@NeoSoft.com> <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> Sender: news@njit.edu Organization: NJIT - EIES2 Lines: 9 Nntp-Posting-Host: eies2.njit.edu In article <1992Aug6.140100.5815@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: : I wouldn't accept USL's word for it (and don't), but I would rather :have a third party form an opinion than spend year's in court, and try :to educate a jury enough to be able to understand the issues, let alone :decide them. Dream on dude! No law firm in the world is going to give up a few years legal fees for some third party to form a unbiased opinion. You didn't really think that lawyers do this for truth, justice and the American way did you? Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd From: joeg@gagme (joe grosch) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <1992Aug9.180643.9384@serveme.chi.il.us> Sender: usenet@serveme.chi.il.us Organization: GAGME - Public Access UNIX of Chicago, Illinois, USA, Earth X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL4 References: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> Date: Sun, 9 Aug 1992 18:06:43 GMT Lines: 86 torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: [...Deleted...] : The Berkeley license has, since 1981 if not earlier, ALWAYS given : permission for others, including corporations, to do anything they want : with UC Berkeley software, including sell it, as long as the Unversity : of California is properly acknowledged. [...Deleted...] I have never seen nor do I own a copy of Net2 but I have been told by people who have read Berkeley code that the following is "Everywhere" in the Berkeley code. The following is a direct quote from W. Richard Stevens wonderful book _UNIX Network Programming_. This quote can be found on the bottom of page 568 and the top of page 569. Chapter 14, section 14.3 "rcmd Function and rshd Server" /* * Copyright (c) 1983 Regents of the University of California. * All rights reserved. * * Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted * provided that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are * duplicated in all such forms and that any documentation, * advertising materials, and other materials related to such * distribution and use acknowledge that the software was developed * by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the * University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived * from this software without specific prior written permission. * THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED ``AS IS'' AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR * IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED * WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. */ Stevens then goes on to list the complete code for both rcmd and rshd. _UNIX Network Programming_ was published in 1990 (my copy) by Prentice Hall. I have been told by the people that work at the book store where I bought this copy, Books & Bytes in Naperville, IL., that they have trouble keeping this book in stock. I have 3 points to make and then I'll shut up. 1. The above copyright notice says that the "following code is the property of the University of California, Berkeley Board of Regents." It seems to me that Berkeley must have tons of lawyers who reviewed this copyright notice and FORCED the programmers to place this in all their code. Since Berkeley and AT&T had a relationship going back to the mid to late 70's (Not sure of the exact date) one would assume that "their lawyers talked to our lawyers". It seems odd to me that Berkeley was placing copyright notices in their code as early as 1983 or '81 and the AT&T lawyers did'nt bitch about it, or at least file a law suit. Does it seem reasonable to wait 10 years to file a law suit to protect what you consided your property? 2. Prentice Hall has been publishing UNIX books since the first copy of _The C Programming Language_ was published in 1978 (?). They even published the manuals for AT&T's UNIX System V Release 3.2. Prentice Hall also must have tons of lawyers and they also have had a relationship with AT&T going back almost 15 years. Prentice Hall's lawyers MUST have reviewed the galleys of _UNIX Network Programming_. They also must speak with the AT&T lawyers. The fact that I and tens of thousands of others own a copy of _UNIX Network Programming_ which contains code that the University og California, Berkeley clams to own is proof that neither the lawyers at Prentice Hall or AT&T at the time had a problem with this. 3. There is a priciple in law that says that one must protect one's property and due so in a timely manner or else one loses claim to that property. It's called in encroachment (sp). If one owns a piece of land and someone builds a house on that land, the owner of the land must take legal action to remove that house AND that legal action must start within a certain period of time or else the person who buildt the house is "deeded title" to the land. Even though AT&T may (not sure of the time limit) be allowed to file suit to protect what they consider to be their property. The fact that their lawyers were aparently told, almost constently over the last 10 years, that Berkeley considered this code that they (Berkeley) had written to be their own and they (AT&T) did nothing seems to indicate that AT&T agreed with Berkeley at the time. It seems to me that AT&T now wants to own this code and since Berkeley cannot sell BSD as a commericial venture they are attacking those who are, BSDI. -- Josef Grosch | It's been a quiet week in Lake Wobegon, my home town... joeg@gagme.chi.il.us | New Yorker by birth, Minnesoten by choice Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Sender: usenet@iti.org (Hela USENET News System) Nntp-Posting-Host: hela.iti.org Organization: Industrial Technology Institute References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> Date: Mon, 3 Aug 1992 13:49:04 GMT Lines: 25 merlin@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes: >Perhaps the people at UNIGRAM don't understand what they have been >reading? I clearly denied all of AT&T's supposed claims including: > o AT&T's claimed trademark on UNIX > o AT&T's claimed copyright on 4.3BSD-NET2 > o AT&T's claimed patents in 4.3BSD-NET2 > o AT&T's claimed trade secrets in 4.3BSD-NET2 Perhaps you should read the complaints more carefully before flying off the handle at UNIGRAM for failing to understand what they read. In no available complaint does USL claim patent violation. >My principal point was that AT&T's long failure to enforce any of >it's supposed intellectual property rights in the 4.3BSD-NET1 and >4.3BSD-NET2 codes transfered these claims into the public domain. While personally I agree with you, historically disputes over such things are settled in the courts. -- "If life were fair, the acquisition of a large bosom or a massive inheritance would have no bearing on your ability to attract the opposite sex, and Dan Quayle would be making a living asking runny-nosed children, `Do you want fries with that?'" -- John Cleese From: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: <7044@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: 3 Aug 92 14:42:42 GMT References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> Organization: AIAI, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Lines: 20 > According >to USL, the school effectively rejected a proposal for a full >comparison of Berkeley versus USL code by unbiased third parties >by demanding that the evaluation be limited only to USL-specified >snapshots and by selecting as arbiters for its side members of >the Computer Systems Research Group whose credentials, USL >claims, were already tainted. The restriction to snapshots is perfectly reasonable. If USL "knows for a fact" that NET2 contains proprietary AT&T code, they should say what this code is. Otherwise, they're just on a fishing expedition. >USL and has created a cadre of naive tech weinees ready to form a >lynch mob. Unbiased reporting strikes again. -- jd Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd From: lundby@tigger.comm.mot.com (Walter Lundby) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Reply-To: lundby@comm.mot.com Organization: Motorola LMPS Research, Schaumburg, IL Date: Thu, 6 Aug 1992 16:13:25 GMT Message-ID: <1992Aug6.161325.3960@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com> Sender: news@lmpsbbs.comm.mot.com (Net News) Nntp-Posting-Host: 145.1.80.38 Lines: 69 First: an apology to BZS@ussr.std.com, I intended to "post" this and accidently "replied" to you. (Hit the wrong button).... anyway... In article you write: |> |>>>It is blatantly derived from Multics. |>> |>>It most certainly is *NOT*. At no point did anyone ever claim that there |>>was Multics code in UNIX. The fact that one was written in PL/I, and the |>>other in assembly, first, and then C, may have had something to do with |>>this... :) |> |>That's not what "derived" means in this context. |> |>It can just mean that the algorithms or internal structures were |>derived. |> |> |>-- |> -Barry Shein > I seem to recall (This may be bogus) that TANDEM first implemented the UNIX variant on NON-STOPS in the PASCAL language. This was to make it eaiser to do a ADA version for their next cut. The purpose, as I understand it, was to make it DOD-ADA compliant. This was infered (by me) as a port from "c". It would then be proper to consider it derived. Therefore, what difference does it make if similar OS's are implemented in different languages (PL/1, C, assembly, P-CODE, ADA, SMALLTALK, Fortran...etc). The question posed here seems to be how should history and lineage be viewed in a legal context and what is a permissible evolutionary path for other developers and hobbyists. A second question is this: (any lawyers want to enlighten me here) Linux and BSD have been enhanced by hobbyists and other users. The enhancements seem so extensive (to this non-participant observer) that one might even claim that the OS packages were developed by an adhoc group of interested parties. These people have unknown pedigrees (exposure to unknown source and copyrights) and history. Many part were unsolicited. Is this sort of development considered "tainted" by the legal community and therefore open game? Are hobbyist and ad-hoc groups (Tinkers- inventors-users) a relic of the past akin to dinosaurs? Could this attitude have anything to do with the decline of inovation due to "garage" tinkerers in the USA? This posting is not a statment of belief or opinion, just some honest questions I have regarding the whole topic. (I have not yet formed a personal position.) -- ######################################## # # Disclaimer: # Opinions expressed are only my own, # and should not be construed as # representing those of Motorola Inc. # ######################################## Walter Lundby Systems Technology Research Land Mobile Products Sector Motorola, Inc. From: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com (Rob Warnock) Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit Message-ID: Date: 7 Aug 92 06:50:54 GMT Sender: rpw3@rigden.wpd.sgi.com Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc. Mountain View, CA Lines: 28 kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes: +--------------- | One thing which has spurred, or been spurred by, the open systems | movement is the licensing of technology between vendors. A much | larger portion of programmers today are porting and integrating | ``standard'' platform tools, as opposed to creating and developing new | proprietary ones. +--------------- Ah yes, reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "In the good old days physicists repeated each other's experiments, just to be sure. Today they stick to FORTRAN, so they can share each other's programs, bugs included." -- Edsger W. Dijkstra, in "How Do We Tell Truths That Might Hurt?" (1975) Today we use "standard" OSs and GUIs, so *everybody's* platforms are equally slow and buggy... -Rob ----- Rob Warnock, MS-9U/510 rpw3@sgi.com Silicon Graphics, Inc. (415)390-1673 2011 N. Shoreline Blvd. Mountain View, CA 94043