Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!news
From: mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.sun.admin,comp.unix.admin,comp.unix.solaris
Subject: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 21 Jul 1992 02:01:03 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
Lines: 134
Sender: mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin)
Message-ID: <l6nkifINNjoo@neuro.usc.edu>
References: x
NNTP-Posting-Host: neuro.usc.edu
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD

[For people in comp.unix.sysv386 -- two products were recently released in
field test versions with a production version intended in the near future.
Berkeley Software Design, Inc [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD] has offered full source
code for a product called 'BSD/386' based on the publically available code
made available via numerous archive sites from the UC Regents 4.3BSD-NET2
UNIX software distribution.  Willian and Lynne Jolitz have offered the full
sources for an alternative product called '386BSD' which is also based on
the publically available UC Regents 4.3BSD-NET2 UNIX software distribution.
'BSD/386' sells for $1,000 for the full source and $200 for a binary right 
to copy.  '386BSD' is available from numerous public archive sites without
any charge of any kind.]

[The UC Regents 4.3BSD-NET2 software was claimed not to contain any AT&T
derived source code -- as a consequence it was believed by many people to
be an appropriate base for development of extremely inexpensive versions
of 'Berkeley UNIX' compatible operating systems.  This claim is disputed
by AT&T as described below.]

[This note is not an advertisement of any kind.  I am not connected with
AT&T, ATTIS, USG, USDL, USL (or whatever AT&T would like to be called in
the near future), Bell Laboratories, UC Regents, CSRG, BSDI, or the Jolitz 
Development Team.  This is simply an expression of concern about litigation 
which will have a dramatic effect on whether or not AT&T is allowed to have
monopoly interest in operating systems derived from publically available 
source codes.  Frankly, I am curious about the ultimate judge's decision.]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Two days ago I told a colleague in Psychology that the world had changed
-- we spent several hours talking about the possibilities for good which
arose from the free or at least very low cost release of 386BSD & BSD/386.

However, AT&T [and it's massive army of high paid staff attorneys] have
fired the first shot in a legal action which may doom such possibilities.

Tomorrow I'm going to have to tell him the forces of darkness and greed
have decended to crush hope of using UNIX in extremely low cost systems.

The bottom line is that AT&T claims NET2 is contaminated with intellectual
property misappropriated from AT&T -- perhaps not direct copies of source
code -- but at least ways of doing things (trade secrets) -- and therefore
any system derived from NET2 requires an AT&T source code license [it used
to be about $10,000 to get an AT&T source license].  The threat is twofold

o  AT&T can sue anyone who has any assets or any prospect of assets for
   each and every copy of an operating system maintained or allowed to
   be copied by any individual without payment of the AT&T license fee

o  AT&T can withdraw it's contribution from any organization which would
   permit the maintenance or copying of systems derived from 4.3BSD-NET2

AT&T's complaint 92-1667 filed in US District Court--New Jersey claims:

o  AT&T authorized the UC Regents to distribute certain works derived
   from their UNIX software to third parties ... subject to restrictions

   o  Those restrictions include a requirement limiting such distribution
      to persons who have also acquired licenses from AT&T or USL

o  'Networking Release 2' contains software code that was copied from, 
    based upon, or derived from, code licensed to the Regents by AT&T 

o  Any operating system derived from 'Networking Release 2' requires a 
   license from AT&T or its successor, USL

AT&T's entire complaint is contained in a false advertising and unfair
competition claim based on BSDI's brochure which states BSDI sources are 
not derived from AT&T code --and-- do not require an AT&T source license.

AT&T's 1-MAY-92 interrogatory (a series of questions to an adversary) asks:

o  Whether anyone related to BSDI has ever had access to AT&T UNIX sources

o  How much employee time was spent to develop BSDI's source code product

BSDI's motion to dismiss and subsequent press releases argue that AT&T has
not made out an adequate case of copyright infringement -- and -- therefore
cannot maintain their claim of false advertising or unfair competition 
until they prove what BSDI would like to say is a simple copyright claim.  

However, the AT&T claim is not a copyright claim -- it is a claim that BSDI
incorporated intellectual property belonging to AT&T into the BSDI product.
The intellectual property may be in the form of copyright, patent, or trade 
secret protected material.  While NET2 may not literally contain any direct
copies of AT&T source code -- it is very possible it contains a translation
or adaptation of copyrighted material -- or it may contain a patented means
of performing some task -- or it may be based on knowledge of the original
techniques [trade secrets] embodied in the AT&T source code.  Hence, AT&T
only has to prove that someone involved in CSRG's NET2 release or in BSDI's 
BSD/386 development had access to AT&T licensed materials at some time in
his/her lifetime to trigger the spectre of contamination of BSDI's product.

BSDI's position is in stark contrast the Phoenix BIOS project where two
teams of engineers worked in parallel -- one team developing a functional
specification by studying the original IBM BIOS ROM chip codes -- and a
second completely independent and compartmentalized team developing code.
There is no suggestion either CSRG or BSDI made any effort to institute
similar means to prevent the incorporation of AT&T technology in BSD/386. 

Further, AT&T's question about the time investment of BSDI in bringing out
their product [compared with their own cost over many years] will likely go
a long way toward supporting their unfair competition claim.  If it took a
small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.

On a final note, BSDI's own press release states that:

  Although USL has not sued the University of California, we expect that
  USL (or its parent, ATT) will threaten to review or withdraw research
  grants made to any university or research institution using or
  distributing software based on NET2 ...

All in all, this filing by a corporate giant with virtually unlimited funds
for legal expenses would seem to spell the doom of 'free' UNIX projects as
they are presently conceived.  There is simply too much risk someone with a
prior exposure to AT&T source codes could manage to contaminate the product.

Sigh, AJ

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alexander-James Annala
Principal Investigator
Neuroscience Image Analysis Network
HEDCO Neuroscience Building, Fifth Floor
University of Southern California
University Park
Los Angeles, CA 90089-2520
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!mnemosyne.cs.du.edu!nyx!jjsmith
From: jjsm...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jonathan J. Smith)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
X-Disclaimer: Nyx is a public access Unix system run by the University
	of Denver for the Denver community.  The University has neither
	control over nor responsibility for the opinions of users.
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Sender: use...@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu (netnews admin account)
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu>
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 92 14:26:31 GMT
Lines: 13


Hrm well to the uneducated in legalieze (me) this sounds just a tad unlikely,
First of I believe that AT&T has to PROVE that said things actually were
based on derived from intellectual property of AT&T.  I also believe that
burden of proof lies with AT&T.  To me it sounds a shade unlikely that they
could possibly prove that , I COULD be totaly wrong here however.  Just doubting
that is will happen i guess, sounds way to unreasonable.

Besides its not the END of ALL unlicensed *nix stuff, Look at the GNU project, 
or MACH stuff.. unless AT&T is going to claim those fall under its intellectual
property also!.

Jonathan Smith

Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!decwrl!mips!news.cs.indiana.edu!umn.edu!
buddha.ncc.umn.edu!rodeen
From: rod...@buddha.ncc.umn.edu (Rick Odeen)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.152007.1126@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Date: 21 Jul 92 15:20:07 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu>
Sender: n...@news2.cis.umn.edu (Usenet News Administration)
Organization: Nutrition Coordinating Center, University of Minnesota
Lines: 19
Nntp-Posting-Host: buddha.ncc.umn.edu

In article <l6nibgINN...@neuro.usc.edu> mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>Further, AT&T's question about the time investment of BSDI in bringing out
>their product [compared with their own cost over many years] will likely go
>a long way toward supporting their unfair competition claim.  If it took a
>small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
>to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
>it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.

I don't think this is a valid claim, Linus Torvalds developed the Linux
system in less than one year from scratch.

-Rick Odeen


-- 
"MINIX costs $169, but the license allows  | Rick Odeen 
making two backup copies, so the effective | rod...@buddha.ncc.umn.edu 
price can be under $60."                   | rutgers!umn-cs!buddha!rodeen
         - a...@cs.vu.nl (Andy Tanenbaum)   |

Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!destroyer!gumby!wupost!darwin.sura.net!mips!
pacbell.com!tandem!UB.com!igor!fensende!mcuddy
From: mcu...@fensende.Rational.COM (Mike Cuddy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <mcuddy.711795634@fensende>
Date: 22 Jul 92 09:00:34 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu>
Sender: n...@Rational.COM
Lines: 26

jjsm...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jonathan J. Smith) writes:


>Hrm well to the uneducated in legalieze (me) this sounds just a tad unlikely,
>First of I believe that AT&T has to PROVE that said things actually were
>based on derived from intellectual property of AT&T.  I also believe that
>burden of proof lies with AT&T.  To me it sounds a shade unlikely that they
>could possibly prove that , I COULD be totaly wrong here however.  Just 
>doubting that is will happen i guess, sounds way to unreasonable.

Heh, you forget that USL/ATT have lots of money for lawyers.  How many 5 to 10
thousand dollar lawsuits can BSDI withstand?  5?  10?  That's a lot of money
for a startup, however, it's piss in a bucket for ATT/USL. *SIGH*   Do not
forget the principles this country is decaying under:  Only the financially 
advantaged win :-(.

Boycott AT&T, don't use the phone. ;-)

--Mike Cuddy (mcu...@rational.com, fensende!mcu...@apple.com)
To Anachreon in Heav'n/Where he sat in full glee/A few sons of harmony sent a 
petition/That he them inspi-re and patron would be/When this answer arrived/
from the jolly old Grecian/"Boys fiddle and flute,/no longer be mute,/
I'll lend 'ye my name/And inspire ya' ta' boot/And besides I'll instruct 'ye/
like me, to entwine/ the Myrtle of Venus with Bacchus' vine!
-- sing to the tune of the star spangled banner... (these are the orig words,
yes folks, our national anthem is a ``let's get drunk and F*** song'').

Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!newsun!gateway.novell.com!terry
From: te...@npd.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com>
Date: 22 Jul 92 21:29:03 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
<mcuddy.711795634@fensende>
Sender: n...@gateway.novell.com (NetNews)
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Lines: 116
Nntp-Posting-Host: thisbe.eng.sandy.novell.com

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Summary: 
Expires: 
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> 
<mcuddy.711795634@fensende>
Sender: 
Followup-To: 
Distribution: 
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD

In article <mcuddy.711795634@fensende> mcu...@fensende.Rational.COM (Mike Cuddy) 
writes:
>jjsm...@nyx.cs.du.edu (Jonathan J. Smith) writes:
>
>
>>Hrm well to the uneducated in legalieze (me) this sounds just a tad unlikely,
>>First of I believe that AT&T has to PROVE that said things actually were
>>based on derived from intellectual property of AT&T.  I also believe that
>>burden of proof lies with AT&T.  To me it sounds a shade unlikely that they
>>could possibly prove that , I COULD be totaly wrong here however.  Just 
>>doubting that is will happen i guess, sounds way to unreasonable.
>
>Heh, you forget that USL/ATT have lots of money for lawyers.  How many 5 to 10
>thousand dollar lawsuits can BSDI withstand?  5?  10?  That's a lot of money
>for a startup, however, it's piss in a bucket for ATT/USL. *SIGH*   Do not
>forget the principles this country is decaying under:  Only the financially 
>advantaged win :-(.

I would think that there are several issues involved here:

1)	Trademark infringement

Is the University of California, Berkeley, entitled to use the AT&T
trademark because it is an AT&T licensee?  If so, the trademark is
defensible on the basis that it is held by AT&T and licensed.  The suit
may be pressed on grounds that use of the "1-800-ITS-UNIX" appearing in
the BSDI materials constituted use of the trademark without footnoting
the fact that "UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T and Bell
Laboratories" for that particular use.  Even if the trademark is clearly
identified due to other use in the materials, this is a nit that AT&T is
entitled to pick.  Under what conditions would this not be true?  The
first is that if UCB is not entitled to use of the trademark, a case can
be made that UCB's longstanding use constitutes "common usage", and thus
"UNIX" is no longer a trademark.  The second case is if the initial use
of the trademark is footnoted.  This implies inclusion of all subsequent
references in the materials.


2)	Copyright infringement

I do not think it is possible to pursue a case on this basis; this is due
in large part to the nature of the developement effort that took place.
One place where this might fall down would be infringement on the basis
of "look and feel".  I think that it would be possible to argue that the
"look and feel" of the AT&T OS derives in large part from UCB code that is
not proprietary to AT&T.  The problem with this approach, as opposed to
simple copyright violation by inclusion of AT&T dervied source, is that
the burden of proof for "look and feel" would be easily satisfied, and
that it would then be up to BSDI (or UCB) to prove that the "look and feel"
is derivitive of UCB code.  This could be rather expensive.  I think AT&T's
failure to bring suit against Andy Tannenbaum rules this out.


3)	Trade secret infringement

I do not believe this is defensible at all.  First, there has not been
sufficient effort by AT&T to protect their trade secrets.  Allowing the
Bachman book, among many, many other titles to continue to be published,
each of which disclose in large measure AT&T's "trade secrets".  I think
it would be difficult for AT&T to find a particular "trade secret" to
litigate over; there are too many counter examples.  This could still be
effective, as it will be very expensive coming up with counter examples.


All of these issues fail from the standpoint of BSDI's willingness to drag
UCB, CSRG, and the Jolitz's into the matter.  Using any of these as an
example, it would be trivial to provide proof of "adverse use".  This would
have the effect of placing litigation issues brought by AT&T into the
public domain, thereby restricting.  Obviously, UCB and CSRG are much
better targets than the Jolitz's, in this case, as any suits brought
against the Jolitz's for their release of code would be considered to be
contemporaries of the suits against BSDI, and therefore would not be
binding on the court (this has yet to reach appellate level).

I think it is possible to exempt UCB, CSRG, and the Jolitz's from this by
declaration that their disclosure constitutes "educational use" within the
terms of the initial license to UCB, and still go on to prosecute BSDI on
the basis of violation of the terms of distribution from UCB, as set forth
in the initial license.  I have not read the AT&T to UCB license, but I
suspect that the terms were not written to cover this eventuality; after
all, there was not a commercial product based on AT&T's intellectual property
at the time of UCB's being granted a license.  If the AT&T/UCB agreement
could be cast in this light, it's definitely the tack I would use to press
the suit on AT&T's behalf.


*** prediction alert *** prediction alert *** prediction alert ***

I think that AT&T will win; not on the merits of reality, but on the merits
of their arguments.  It will be difficult, without educating the judge to
the point of a CS degree, to draw the distinctions necessary to prove
non-infringement by BSDI.  It certainly *looks* like BSDI is infringing
to a layman, and that's what the judge will be.  I seriously doubt that
the judge will be willing to set the precedent of applying property law
to intellectual property (even though I think it applicable in this way)
by making a decision for "adverse use", a [physical] property law concept.
This will certainly bode ill for all of us "contaminated" by knowledge
of "AT&T concepts" drummed into us in college.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lamb...@gateway.novell.com
					te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <1823@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:10:45 GMT
References: <1992Jul21.142631.14517@mnemosyne.cs.du.edu> <mcuddy.711795634@fensende> 
<1992Jul22.212903.29537@gateway.novell.com>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 23

In article <1992Jul22.212903.29...@gateway.novell.com> te...@npd.Novell.COM 
(Terry Lambert) writes:
>*** prediction alert *** prediction alert *** prediction alert ***
>
>I think that AT&T will win; not on the merits of reality, but on the merits
>of their arguments.  It will be difficult, without educating the judge to
>the point of a CS degree, to draw the distinctions necessary to prove
>non-infringement by BSDI.  It certainly *looks* like BSDI is infringing
>to a layman, and that's what the judge will be.

Well, I sincerely hope you're wrong; but I also believe you will be.
Certainly AT&Ts win/lose situation won't be based on `the merits of
reality', but on the other hand they have so far not been able to give
a single example of where the alleged infringement is. I don't believe
they want to win; they're playing this court case relatively low-key,
and I suspect their motives are more to keep BSDI from doing real work
(like a production release of BSD/386) and to keep potential customers
away. That way, they don't need to win.

-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
*** NOTE ***: Headers are mangled - reply to grog%le...@Germany.EU.net

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.sysv386
Path: sparky!uunet!ferkel.ucsb.edu!piggy!jim
From: j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!
Message-ID: <jim.712001976@piggy>
Organization: University of California, Santa Barbara
References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> 
<2cHS02Pi1bvx01@JUTS.ccc.amdahl.com> <l6vrqvINN91g@neuro.usc.edu> 
<l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 18:19:36 GMT
Lines: 18

I had been planning on getting an upgrade from Esix 4.0.3A to the recently
released Esix 4.0.4.  However, because of this action by USL/AT&T, I will
not be purchasing an upgrade.  I have just sent off a note to Esix
informing them of my action, and reasons.  Remember, long distance service
isn't the only thing we can boycott.  Besides, I've never been an AT&T long
distance customer, so I can't boycott that any more than I already am.
If anyone else is considering the purchase of any AT&T or USL licensed
product (which includes all the System V Unixes), you might consider holding
off on the purchase.  But the important thing if you do is to tell your
vendor and USL what you're doing and why.

                            Jim Lick		       
Work: University of California	| Play: 1236 Camino Meleno
      Santa Barbara		|       Santa Barbara, CA 93111-1007
      Dept. of Mechanical Engr. |	(805) 964-2088 voice/msg
      2311 Engr II Building     |	(805) MUD-SPY1 data
      (805) 893-4113            |       j...@case.isla-vista.ca.us
      j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu	|       j...@cave.isla-vista.ca.us

Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!
linac!att!att!allegra!alice!andrew
From: and...@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!
Summary: if you protest, protest effectively
Message-ID: <23309@alice.att.com>
Date: 24 Jul 92 18:51:47 GMT
Article-I.D.: alice.23309
References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill NJ
Lines: 37



	let me say up front that i work for at&t. i neither work for,
nor have any influence on, USL. the opinions expressed below are my
own and not at&t's.

	i am not a lawyer but although USL's suit is arguably outrageous,
and certainly hamfisted, its main point seems plausible. USL has a lot
vested in the trademark UNIX and it is simply prudent to protect that.
BSDI asserts that its source is at&t-free; USL asserts it isn't at&t-free
(or even usl-free). this kind of dispute is settled by suits all the time
so it is disingenuous to claim USL shouldn't do so simply because it is
big and BSDI is small. one might ask why USL didn't go after CSRG or UCB
but again there is a plausible reason why BSDI is it; it is the first do
attempt to make money from the NET-2 source (as far as i know).

	if you agree with me that the big issue is whether or not the NET-2
release is free of any licensing concerns, what can be done about that?
you can either try to influence the (technical) decision in court or
try to induce USL to drop the suit. (note that the latter simply leaves
the issue unresolved until next time.) there have been numerous posts
about the former (amicus briefs, supporting bsdi financially etc).
there have been a bunch of posts on teh latter, mostly of uncertain value.

	attempting to affect USL through AT&T seems problematic. USL was setup
solely to make it less connected to at&t. an embargo against system V would
seem more directed and effective (although i certainly can't advocate that).
an embargo against plan 9, as some have proposed, would be utterly pointless.
do you seriously think for a femtosecond that USL gives a damn about you
using plan 9? (i'm sure they are indifferent but if they had an opinion, they
are probably glad you aren't using plan 9.)


	attempting to sum up, people who want to do something should figure
out what they are concerned about befor ethey do it.

		andrew hume

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.sysv386
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!
Message-ID: <1831@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:29:43 GMT
References: <l6vrqvINN91g@neuro.usc.edu> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> 
<jim.712001976@piggy>
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 27

In article <jim.712001976@piggy> j...@ferkel.ucsb.edu (Jim Lick) writes:
>I had been planning on getting an upgrade from Esix 4.0.3A to the recently
>released Esix 4.0.4.  However, because of this action by USL/AT&T, I will
>not be purchasing an upgrade.  I have just sent off a note to Esix
>informing them of my action, and reasons.  Remember, long distance service
>isn't the only thing we can boycott.  Besides, I've never been an AT&T long
>distance customer, so I can't boycott that any more than I already am.
>If anyone else is considering the purchase of any AT&T or USL licensed
>product (which includes all the System V Unixes), you might consider holding
>off on the purchase.  But the important thing if you do is to tell your
>vendor and USL what you're doing and why.

Completely independently of this lawsuit, but certainly in keeping
with the sentiments expressed here, you should consider dropping
System V and getting BSD/386 instead: it's *better*. I've been using
it since March of this year, had been using Interactive and SCO
before, and was expecting a beta version (still the current BSDI
status) to be correspondingly more flaky. In fact, it's more robust
and a *damn* sight easier to install, use and configure than any
System V I've used. In addition, both tape and Ethernet performance
run rings round ISC 2.2. Now's an ideal time to try it!

-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
*** NOTE ***: Headers are mangled - reply to grog%le...@Germany.EU.net

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!
Message-ID: <1832@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:40:25 GMT
References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> <l6vt9sINN93u@neuro.usc.edu> 
<23309@alice.att.com>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 36

In article <23...@alice.att.com> and...@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) writes:
>	let me say up front that i work for at&t. i neither work for,
>nor have any influence on, USL. the opinions expressed below are my
>own and not at&t's.

Well, it's nice to see a dissenting opinion. Nothing makes a
discussion more uninteresting than everybody saying the same thing.
But obviously your opinions are coloured by your origins.

>	if you agree with me that the big issue is whether or not the NET-2
>release is free of any licensing concerns, what can be done about that?
>you can either try to influence the (technical) decision in court or
>try to induce USL to drop the suit.

The obvious thing is to dismiss the suit until:

1. USL specifies *exactly* what it is that, in their opinion, is
   derived from AT&T code.

2. USL serves notice to BSDI to stop using this code.

3. BSDI does not comply within a reasonable time.

The likelihood of (3) happening is low indeed. The fact is, I have no
reason to believe that USL's stated grounds are the real reason for
this lawsuit. They want to set a precedent - BSDI is small,
comparatively vulnerable, and the uncertainty about the legal position
will certainly cost them sales, not to mention the cost of litigation.
If this is not in accordance with the US legal system, then something
*desperately* needs to be done about that.

-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
*** NOTE ***: Headers are mangled - reply to grog%le...@Germany.EU.net

Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zazen!doug.cae.wisc.edu!
umn.edu!cs.umn.edu!quest!digibd!kas!rhealey
From: rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org (Rob Healey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <1992Jul30.174414.28488@kas.helios.mn.org>
Date: 30 Jul 92 17:44:14 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.152007.1126@news2.cis.umn.edu>
Organization: Rob's home system, Hopkins, MN
Lines: 23

In article <1992Jul21.152007.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> rod...@buddha.ncc.umn.edu 
(Rick Odeen) writes:
=I don't think this is a valid claim, Linus Torvalds developed the Linux
=system in less than one year from scratch.
=
	Where did Linus get 99% of his MODELS for Linux? Ans: USL and BSD
	UNIX. "We stand on the shoulders of giants..."

	In other words, he used models for OS concepts that originated
	in UNIX(tm). The system calls, the library calls, the utility
	names, the program names, the memory models, the networking, the
	file systems, the concepts of UID,GID,SUID,SGID, sticky bits,
	mountable filesystems on a tree, etc. These are all basic
	features of UNIX(tm) that he used when creating Linux. You'd
	be VERY hard pressed to find OS concepts these days that HAVEN'T
	passed through a UNIX(tm) kernel at some time in the past. For no other
	reason than UNIX(tm) is the OS most researchers work with on
	a day to day basis and what they tend to hack on. Even micro kernels
	like MACH and probably NT borrow QUITE a bit from the UNIX(tm) system
	in system call names and symantics as well as utility and program
	names. Hell, even that pathetic MSDOG lifts I/O redirection and
	directory command names from UNIX(tm), amongst other things.

		-Rob

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!news.funet.fi!hydra!klaava!torvalds
From: torva...@klaava.Helsinki.FI (Linus Benedict Torvalds)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Keywords: AT&T 'Death Star' rises over BSDI's horizon [Tel. 1-800-800-4BSD
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.114436.8733@klaava.Helsinki.FI>
Date: 1 Aug 92 11:44:36 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul21.152007.1126@news2.cis.umn.edu> 
<1992Jul30.174414.28488@kas.helios.mn.org>
Organization: University of Helsinki
Lines: 39

In article <1992Jul30.174414.28...@kas.helios.mn.org> rhea...@kas.helios.mn.org 
(Rob Healey) writes:
>In article <1992Jul21.152007.1...@news2.cis.umn.edu> rod...@buddha.ncc.umn.edu 
(Rick Odeen) writes:
>=I don't think this is a valid claim, Linus Torvalds developed the Linux
>=system in less than one year from scratch.
>=
>	Where did Linus get 99% of his MODELS for Linux? Ans: USL and BSD
>	UNIX. "We stand on the shoulders of giants..."

Indeed - the /concepts/ of linux are naturally based on things that have
been available in USL and BSD code.  That doesn't mean that there is any
risk of linux being sued by AT&T - they are all properly documented
features, and thus AT&T cannot claim any infringement due to things like
uid/setgid etc general unix interfaces. 

The problem with BSDI and 386BSD is that they have a bit more to prove
than linux: BSD has been developed with free access to AT&T code (and
nobody tries to argue otherwise), and there has been a flow of
information both ways (arguably the flow has been bigger in the BSD ->
AT&T direction, but that isn't the point).  Linux, on the other hand,
has been coded without /any/ AT&T code - not even as a starting point. 
I simply don't have access to any AT&T code even if I wanted to use it,
which I don't. 

So if AT&T claims that BSDI (or 386BSD) couldn't have been developed in
such a short time without AT&T sources, linux is indeed an argument
against that claim.  If one person can write a perfectly functional
system in one year on his home machine (and some people that have tried
both and don't need networking even /prefer/ linux to 386bsd), then a
couple of knowledgeable people shouldn't have any problem to remove all
the AT&T code.

Note that linux isn't the only system that can claim being free from
AT&T code: coherent, minix, etc have all been commercial for a long
time, and USL hasn't tried to sue them.  But linux is special in that
it's been developed in a very short time, and thus can be used as a
counter-argument to the USL claim that the BSDI developement would have
been impossible without AT&T code. 

			Linus

Path: sparky!uunet!centerline!noc.near.net!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!mips!sdd.hp.com!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!cis.ohio-state.edu!news.sei.cmu.edu!fs7.ece.cmu.edu!
crabapple.srv.cs.cmu.edu!andrew.cmu.edu!sean+
From: se...@andrew.cmu.edu (Sean McLinden)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <QeTP0wq00iUyM68Gwo@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: 3 Aug 92 22:16:28 GMT
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu>
Organization: Carnegie Mellon, Pittsburgh, PA
Lines: 24
In-Reply-To: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu>


>Further, AT&T's question about the time investment of BSDI in bringing out
>their product [compared with their own cost over many years] will likely go
>a long way toward supporting their unfair competition claim.  If it took a
>small company like BSDI only a couple of years with a small team of people
>to produce BSD/386 vs the multi year investment of a corporate giant - then
>it is very possible AT&T may prevail on the unfair competition claim.

Cut me a break. AT&T spent 40 million dollars, 5 years, and took 45 people to
develop a hospital information system which they canned at the end of the
project because they were still over a year from meeting their project goals.
The project leader commented, once, that if he had it to do over again, he
knows that he could have done the same project for 1/5 the cost, in 1/5 the
time, with 1/5 the number of people.

It is nothing but arrogance for AT&T to assume that because it took them so
long to do something, that a bright group of highly motivated people working
in an unrestricted environment aimed at producing a work which was suitable
for free and public consumption could not do better.

When I read about something like this I wish Judge Green would have *really*
castrated that company!

Sean McLinden

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!das.wang.com!wang!news
From: al...@batata.huji.ac.il (Allon Herman)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Organization: Mail to News Gateway at Wang Labs
Date: 4 Aug 92 13:32:10 GMT
Message-ID: <5243@shum.huji.ac.il>
References: <1992Jul21.131433.16450@ntuix.ntu.ac.sg> 
<1992Jul30.173606.28357@kas.helios.mn.org> <EPHRAIM.92Jul31124831@fysas.fys.ruu.nl> 
<1992Aug01.141903.20814@NeoSoft.com>
Sender: n...@wang.com
Lines: 27

Folks,
	I'm sorry that I have to raise this issue at all and especially on this
list. I'm not really going to write about AT&T vs. BSDI etc. at all. Anyway to get
to my point, Karl Lehenbauer signed article 3054 with a slogan of Adolph Hitler:
"What luck for rulers that men do not think".

	First Mr. Lehenbauer, please keep in mind that the person who wrote that
slogan did not only write it, he exploited it to the most disastrous extent that
anybody has ever done in the *ENTIRE* histrory of mankind.

	I also suggest that you should think next time who are the potential
readers of the material you submit to the net and wheather you might just
accidently offend them. Furthermore there are saying by people who are
controversial and for the sanity of all of us keep in mind that
comp.unix.bsd is here to let us discuss bsd issues and there are several other
list that are more proper for such saying and the debate over them.

	One last word about the connection of that saying to the AT&T vs. BSDI
debate, AT&T are *not* the rulers and BSDI are *not* the people. This debate is
between two companies that one of their goal is to gain profits where the first
believs that the latter is exploiting its intelectual property. If you *must*
use a slogan please use one that is fit for the issue being discussed!


	Shame on you for your lack of sesitivity to other peoples feelings!

						Allon.

Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!cf-cm!cybaswan!iiitac
From: iii...@cybaswan.UUCP (Alan Cox)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <919@cybaswan.UUCP>
Date: 4 Aug 92 16:10:31 GMT
References: <EPHRAIM.92Jul31124831@fysas.fys.ruu.nl> 
<1992Aug01.141903.20814@NeoSoft.com> <5243@shum.huji.ac.il>
Followup-To: alt.censorship
Organization: University College Swansea
Lines: 55

In article <5...@shum.huji.ac.il> al...@batata.huji.ac.il (Allon Herman) writes:
>Folks,
>	I'm sorry that I have to raise this issue at all and especially on this
>list. I'm not really going to write about AT&T vs. BSDI etc. at all. Anyway to get
>to my point, Karl Lehenbauer signed article 3054 with a slogan of Adolph Hitler:
>"What luck for rulers that men do not think".
>
>	First Mr. Lehenbauer, please keep in mind that the person who wrote that
>slogan did not only write it, he exploited it to the most disastrous extent that
>anybody has ever done in the *ENTIRE* histrory of mankind.
>
>	I also suggest that you should think next time who are the potential
>readers of the material you submit to the net and wheather you might just
>accidently offend them. Furthermore there are saying by people who are
>controversial and for the sanity of all of us keep in mind that
>comp.unix.bsd is here to let us discuss bsd issues and there are several other
>list that are more proper for such saying and the debate over them.
>
>	Shame on you for your lack of sesitivity to other peoples feelings!
>
>						Allon.


Oh good grief I'm going to get ---MAD--- I think.

Has it occured to you that we can't go around avoiding upsetting everyone else
suppose I want to talk about cookery. Is someone going to flame me if I 
mention pork and upset a Jew.  That quote was _very_ _very_ relevant to the
message, and just because it was originated by one of the less popular (ex)
members of the human race doesn't mean it shouldn't be used.

I personally find a lot of things on the net very very insulting and rude,
especially this sort of I know better, I shall act as your advisor and
guardian attitude. We aren't all 12 year old kids, and usenet is an 
anarchy

	 'Anarchy is about accepting other peoples right be totally
	  stupid and brainless'
	  
or the less bigheaded

	'Anarchy is about accepting that someone else might be right'
	

Before you carry on with your daft crusade I'd suggest you read something
Its a book called Farenheit 451, by Ray Bradbury and its all about what
happens if people like you start running the world.

Grow up...

Hail Eris!

Alan

[Flames to /dev/null, NIL: NULL: or whatever null device you choose]

Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!sdd.hp.com!ncr-sd!sceard!mrm
From: m...@sceard.Sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy)
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <1992Aug8.160024.3222@sceard.Sceard.COM>
Reply-To: m...@sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy)
Organization: The Mole and Badger Association of Northern San Diego County
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <QeTP0wq00iUyM68Gwo@andrew.cmu.edu>
Date: Sat, 8 Aug 92 16:00:24 GMT
Lines: 23

In article <QeTP0wq00iUyM68...@andrew.cmu.edu> Sean McLinden <se...@andrew.cmu.edu> 
writes:
>It is nothing but arrogance for AT&T to assume that because it took them so
>long to do something, that a bright group of highly motivated people working
>in an unrestricted environment aimed at producing a work which was suitable
>for free and public consumption could not do better.
>

How many folks did it take to do UNIX(tm) the very first time? :-)
Including an argument that because it was done quickly it is unfair borders
on terminally ignorant. Certainly embarassing.

Is it just since it became gigantic, humongous, and bloated, such that it
requires many people, and computerized databases, and automated coffee brewers
just to manage its problem reports, that it needs a long time to create it
without infringing?

How I love it when the copyright blather takes more space in a source
distribution than the code itself. See USL /bin/true and CSRG
/usr/include/strings.h. Couldn't it just be included once or read into the
record, or assumed, or inserted with a TECO macro built into the kernel? It is
wasteful of disk space and offensive to sensitive people.
-- 
Mike Murphy    m...@Sceard.COM    ucsd!sceard!mrm    +1 619 598 5874

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!sdd.hp.com!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!
ames!agate!toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bostic
From: bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Date: 10 Aug 1992 18:26:26 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 20
Message-ID: <166cciINNr2o@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <l6nibgINNje6@neuro.usc.edu> <QeTP0wq00iUyM68Gwo@andrew.cmu.edu> 
<1992Aug8.160024.3222@sceard.Sceard.COM>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toe.cs.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Aug8.160024.3...@sceard.Sceard.COM> m...@sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) 
writes:
>How I love it when the copyright blather takes more space in a source
>distribution than the code itself. See USL /bin/true and CSRG
>/usr/include/strings.h. Couldn't it just be included once or read into the
>record, or assumed, or inserted with a TECO macro built into the kernel? It is
>wasteful of disk space and offensive to sensitive people.

It can't be included once and fulfill its purpose, the lawyers we've
consulted are consistent on that one.

To argue that it should only be put in "files that are sufficiently
important", while logically appealing, is not reasonable.  To reword
your request, you want me to make a decision on a file-by-file basis
for a system with thousands of files, and then revisit the decision
every time a file is modified.  I don't think I get paid enough for that.

	Keith Bostic
	uunet!bostic
	bos...@okeeffe.berkeley.edu

Path: sparky!uunet!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!caen!destroyer!gumby!yale!yale.edu!
ira.uka.de!smurf.sub.org!altger!stasys!sungy!seven-up.East.Sun.COM!
news2me.ebay.sun.com!exodus.Eng.Sun.COM!appserv.Eng.Sun.COM!slovax.Eng.Sun.COM!lm
From: l...@slovax.Eng.Sun.COM (Larry McVoy)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!!
Message-ID: <l8hhhkINN695@appserv.Eng.Sun.COM>
Date: 12 Aug 92 08:05:08 GMT
References: <166cciINNr2o@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.  Mt. View, Ca.
Lines: 29
NNTP-Posting-Host: slovax

bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic) writes:
: In article <1992Aug8.160024.3...@sceard.Sceard.COM> m...@sceard.COM (M.R.Murphy) 
: writes:
: >How I love it when the copyright blather takes more space in a source
: >distribution than the code itself. See USL /bin/true and CSRG
: >/usr/include/strings.h. Couldn't it just be included once or read into the
: >record, or assumed, or inserted with a TECO macro built into the kernel? It is
: >wasteful of disk space and offensive to sensitive people.
: 
: It can't be included once and fulfill its purpose, the lawyers we've
: consulted are consistent on that one.
: 
: To argue that it should only be put in "files that are sufficiently
: important", while logically appealing, is not reasonable.  To reword
: your request, you want me to make a decision on a file-by-file basis
: for a system with thousands of files, and then revisit the decision
: every time a file is modified.  I don't think I get paid enough for that.

I don't mind the copyrights as long as they don't get in my face.  How about
one of these:

	1) #include <sys/copyright.h>
	2) Put the @%$! copyright at the *bottom* of the file instead
	   of the top.  Surely the lawyers can't tell the difference,
	   right?

I'd be happy to provide a perl script that does #2.  For the whole 
BSD source base.
---
Larry McVoy			(415) 336-7627			 l...@sun.com