Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!algor2.algorists.com!jeffrey
From: jeff...@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Subject: AT&T sues BSDI
Reply-To: jeff...@algor2.algorists.com (Jeffrey Kegler)
Organization: Algorists, Inc.
Date: Mon, 20 Jul 92 21:18:11 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
Keywords: BSDI AT&T
References: <83873@netnews.upenn.edu>
Lines: 21
According to today's _ComputerWorld_ (July 20, 1992, page 16) AT&T's
USL has sued Berkeley Software Design, Inc. in U.S. District Court in
NJ. Copyright and patent infringement are apparently *not* involved,
the grounds being specified as "trademark infringement, false
advertizing and unfair competition."
The article is very short, and I have nothing more on this. Its
relevance to this group is marginal if no copyright, patent or trade
secret issue is involved, but that itself may be interesting -- like
the curious matter in one of Sherlock's Holmes stories about what the
dog did in the night. (For Holmes non-fans, the dog did nothing, in
particular did not bark, suggesting that the parties involved were
familiar to him.) That AT&T does not sue BSDI on intellectual
property rights in software might suggest it believes it has none that
are worth suing over. Then again ...
--
Jeffrey Kegler, Independent UNIX Consultant, Algorists, Inc.
jeff...@algor2.ALGORISTS.COM or uunet!algor2!jeffrey
137 E Fremont AVE #122, Sunnyvale CA 94087
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sdd.hp.com!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!violet!rob
From: r...@violet.berkeley.edu (Rob Robertson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu>
Date: 20 Jul 92 21:52:25 GMT
References: <83873@netnews.upenn.edu>
<1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
Organization: /home/math_a/cc/rob/.organization
Lines: 13
NNTP-Posting-Host: hanalei.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: jeffrey@algor2.algorists.com's message of 20 Jul 1992 21:18:11 GMT
i think they are suing over the use of the U-word.....
be careful, out there, and remember it ain't the U-word unless you've
paid money to AT&T.
rob
--
william robertson
r...@violet.berkeley.edu
"when i was your age, i walked 10 miles to school, unarmed."
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!kithrup!sef
From: s...@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1992 03:05:32 GMT
Message-ID: <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM>
References: <83873@netnews.upenn.edu>
<1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
<ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu>
Lines: 59
In article <ROB.92Jul20165...@hanalei.berkeley.edu> r...@violet.berkeley.edu
(Rob Robertson) writes:
>i think they are suing over the use of the U-word.....
I don't think so... BSDi went to great efforts to remove the word "UNIX" (a
registered trademark of USL) from their system.
There are a bunch of papers on ftp.uu.net:~ftp/vendor/bsdi/usl. Ok, not a
bunch, just five, that seem to have a bunch of information in them (I'm
still looking over them now).
One of the complaints was about the 1-800-ITS-UNIX (I didn't know ITS was
unix compatible... hmm), which is no longer a valid phone number, seeming,
to me at least, that that part of the complaint is either resolved or no
longer relevant.
One of the interesting paragraphs is:
14. Substantial portions of BSDI's BSD/386 operating system are copied from,
based upon, or otherwise derived from, USL's proprietary software products.
Plantiff reserves the right to seek an ammendment of this Complaint to add
claims for relief with respect to violation by BSDI of USL's proprietary
rights upon the development of additional facts.
and
24. As shown in Exhibit B, BSDI's promotional materials contain
the following representations concerning its "BSD/386" system:
BSD/386 is a "Berkeley UNIX" compatible operating system for
the 386 and 486 PC architectures. It is based on the most
recent release from the Computer Systems Research Group of
the University of California, Berkeley - the Networking Release
2. The NET2 tape contained no AT&T licensed code, but was not
a complete system. BSDI has completed the system and added
additional drivers. The resulting system does not require a
license from AT&T, and so is available in source form at a
fraction of AT&T's price.
25. This statement is materially false and misleading in that,
among other things, the "Networking Release 2" referred to therein
contains software code that was copied from, based upon, or derived
from, code licensed to the Regents by AT&T, such that any operating
system derived from "Networking Release 2" requires a license from
AT&T or its successor, USL.
In other words (potentially *wrong* words, mind you, since I'm not a
lawyer), *anything* based on the Net/2 tape, according to USL, requires an
AT&T/USL license!! (EEEEP!)
I'm not done reading files yet, but thought I'd mention the above stuff now.
Comments, anyone?
--
Sean Eric Fagan | "My psychiatrist says I have a messiah
s...@kithrup.COM | complex. But I forgive him."
-----------------+ -- Jim Carrey
Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <1821@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 22 Jul 92 13:32:36 GMT
References: <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
<ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 85
In article <1992Jul21.030532.10...@kithrup.COM> s...@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
writes:
>In article <ROB.92Jul20165...@hanalei.berkeley.edu> r...@violet.berkeley.edu
(Rob Robertson) writes:
>>i think they are suing over the use of the U-word.....
>
>I don't think so... BSDi went to great efforts to remove the word "UNIX" (a
>registered trademark of USL) from their system.
This is apparently not BSDI's first encounter with USL in court. Last
time they agreed not to use the word UNIX in any form, and to change
the phone number. Last time, USL apparently also alleged that BSDI was
claiming the *presence*, not the absence, of AT&T code in BSD/386.
>One of the interesting paragraphs is:
>
>14. Substantial portions of BSDI's BSD/386 operating system are copied from,
>based upon, or otherwise derived from, USL's proprietary software products.
> (more good stuff omitted)
>
>24. As shown in Exhibit B, BSDI's promotional materials contain
>the following representations concerning its "BSD/386" system:
>
> BSD/386 is a "Berkeley UNIX" compatible operating system for
> the 386 and 486 PC architectures.
Yes, I don't think this is misrepresentation. It's compatible with
Berkeley UNIX. That doesn't make it Berkeley UNIX, and it doesn't
constitute a claim to that effect. PC clones are compatible with the
IBM PC-AT. IBM hasn't sued them for saying they're PC compatible.
Personally, this whole business infuriates me. I have seen other stuff
(in other postings and also UNIGRAM-X, for example), in which an AT&T
spokesman is quoted as saying that anybody who has had access to AT&T
UNIX (tm) sources cannot develop operating system software which is
not derived from it. For an operating system software developer, this
means that AT&T has him by the short and curlies if he ever has access
to AT&T sources. Not he, but AT&T, has the choice of him working for
AT&T or effectively being out of work.
The whole business is all the more ludicrous when you consider when
the last significant influx of AT&T code into BSD occurred: according
to the diagram on page 5 of the daemon book, it was with 32V (derived
from the 7th edition) in 1978. Can AT&T seriously claim that the
deliberately primitive algorithms in such an old system can still be
of any significant value? Can they prove that somebody without access
to AT&T sources could not do something equally well, if not better?
There have been dozens of books published on the open market which
have gone into all aspects of the algorithms used. Linus Torwalds
wrote Linux, apparently unassisted, in a very short space of time.
What is so special about the original AT&T stuff that you would need a
license for it anyway?
The real issue here is, of course, not the source. AT&T must know
about Bill Jolitz; according to the text here, he's guilty of the same
`crime'. The fact is, AT&T is scared of BSDI; they're not scared of
Bill. They're just trying to kill a small startup with litigation.
What can we do about this? I don't know. The most important issues
seem to be:
Freedom of employment: if I had had exposure to AT&T sources (and I'm
damned if I'd admit it if I had), I would feel highly threatened by
any judgement which effectively meant that any company should hesitate
to hire me for this reason. I would suggest that, if AT&T want to
maintain this position, they should also declare themselves willing to
hire any programmer who has had access to their code.
Relationships: an AT&T source license is expensive - I don't know what
the object license costs, but it can't be that much, based on the
price that Consensys used to charge for its SVR4 port. If Net 2 really
is found to contain any AT&T-derived code (and AT&T has not published
a single indication of where such code might be found), it's certainly
not very much. It would be unreasonable to expect much of a license in
return for this, unless AT&T can prove that BSDI is incapable of
replacing it. In any case, fairness would demand that AT&T give BSDI
an indication of what code they consider derived from their works and
give them a chance to remove it. Law isn't fair, of course, but I
would expect that even the US legal system would find a reason to
expect this.
--
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!cis.ohio-state.edu!pacific.mps.ohio-state.edu!linac!
att!ucbvax!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!wjolitz
From: wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu (William F. Jolitz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <14kcimINNcr5@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 22 Jul 92 19:23:02 GMT
References: <ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu>
<1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM> <1821@adagio.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. Berkeley, CS Undergraduate Association
Lines: 22
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
In article <1...@adagio.UUCP> g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey) writes:
>....
>The real issue here is, of course, not the source. AT&T must know
>about Bill Jolitz; according to the text here, he's guilty of the same
>`crime'....
To put any concerns to rest, we have not been contacted by anyone
regarding our 386BSD code, nor have we heard anything negative about the
386BSD releases. As 386BSD is intended for the research and educational
communities and is freely available (not proprietary), all code we have
written is fully disclosed. In addition, methodology is published and
available for review in major magazines. In fact, this project has been
public knowledge for over three years now.
Please refrain from using inflammatory words such as "crime" with respect to
386BSD and the developers, as we are not involved in this matter. We have
no relationship with BSDi or CSRG, nor do we condone the actions of any
party involved in this dispute.
BTW, patches should be out in a few days, if we can ever get through mail.
Bill and Lynne Jolitz.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <1824@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 23 Jul 92 17:19:55 GMT
References: <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM> <1821@adagio.UUCP>
<14kcimINNcr5@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 38
In article <14kcimINN...@agate.berkeley.edu> wjol...@soda.berkeley.edu
(William F. Jolitz) writes:
>In article <1...@adagio.UUCP> g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey) writes:
>>....
>>The real issue here is, of course, not the source. AT&T must know
>>about Bill Jolitz; according to the text here, he's guilty of the same
>>`crime'....
>
>To put any concerns to rest, we have not been contacted by anyone
>regarding our 386BSD code, nor have we heard anything negative about the
>386BSD releases. As 386BSD is intended for the research and educational
>communities and is freely available (not proprietary), all code we have
>written is fully disclosed.
That's what I expected.
>Please refrain from using inflammatory words such as "crime" with respect to
>386BSD and the developers, as we are not involved in this matter. We have
>no relationship with BSDi or CSRG, nor do we condone the actions of any
>party involved in this dispute.
Bill, don't get me wrong. Note the `' around the word `crime'. I don't
believe you have done anything wrong, and I don't believe BSDI have
done anything wrong. But AT&T is claiming that Net 2 contains AT&T
licensed material. Under those circumstances, whether you like it or
not, you *are* involved in this matter, and they could theoretically
sue you as well. The intention of my post was to suggest that AT&T
isn't interested in doing that, and thus show what the real motives
for their action are.
>
>BTW, patches should be out in a few days, if we can ever get through mail.
Keep up the good work.
--
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!bs
From: b...@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Date: 24 Jul 1992 09:50:18 GMT
Organization: EUnet Backbone, Dortmund, Germany
Lines: 26
Distribution: world
Message-ID: <14ojorINNlm5@disaster.Germany.EU.net>
References: <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
<ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM>
<1821@adagio.UUCP>
NNTP-Posting-Host: walhalla.germany.eu.net
In article <1...@adagio.UUCP>, g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey) writes:
> ... an AT&T
> spokesman is quoted as saying that anybody who has had access to AT&T
> UNIX (tm) sources cannot develop operating system software which is
> not derived from it. ...
Hah !
Does that mean that anyone having seen a Ford and then goes off designing
hir own car will be sued by Ford for the reason of having been exposed
to Ford cars ?
How about journalists using words found in
<insert the name of your favourite dictionary here> will be sued by the
publishers of said item ?
Just a thought
Bernard
P.S. How about anybody who has read the book by Brian & Dennis (who, as far
as I know, happen to be employed by a certain company) ?
--
Bernard Steiner, FB Informatik/IRB, Uni Dortmund, vox +49 231 755 2444
Postfach 500500, D-W-4600 Dortmund 50, Germany fax +49 231 755 2386
b...@Germany.EU.net ...!uunet!unido!bs
*III And they gave it Instructions, but knew it not. } From The Book of Nome,
*IV It is, they said, a Box with a Funny Voice. } Mezzanine v.III-IV
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!sdl!tal
From: t...@Warren.MENTORG.COM (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <1992Jul24.171828.11246@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
Organization: Mentor Graphics, Silicon Design Division
References: <1992Jul20.211811.3152@algor2.algorists.com>
<ROB.92Jul20165225@hanalei.berkeley.edu> <1992Jul21.030532.10307@kithrup.COM>
<1821@adagio.UUCP> <14ojorINNlm5@disaster.Germany.EU.net>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 17:18:28 GMT
Lines: 19
[ I can't resist one more post ]
In <14ojorINN...@disaster.Germany.EU.net> b...@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner) writes:
>Does that mean that anyone having seen a Ford and then goes off designing
>hir own car will be sued by Ford for the reason of having been exposed
>to Ford cars ?
There is a difference between reading the source, and using the
program.
HAS ANYONE COMPARED THE CODE THEMSELVES? Could someone with a source
license FTP the damn NET2 release, pass them through "indent" and then
compare them?
Tom
--
Tom Limoncelli -- t...@warren.mentorg.com (work) -- t...@plts.uucp (play)
Maybe Bush will follow Perot's lead.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: AT&T sues BSDI
Message-ID: <1833@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 25 Jul 92 11:51:07 GMT
References: <1821@adagio.UUCP> <14ojorINNlm5@disaster.Germany.EU.net>
<1992Jul24.171828.11246@Warren.MENTORG.COM>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 31
In article <1992Jul24.171828.11...@Warren.MENTORG.COM> t...@Warren.MENTORG.COM
(Tom Limoncelli) writes:
>[ I can't resist one more post ]
>
>In <14ojorINN...@disaster.Germany.EU.net> b...@Germany.EU.net (Bernard Steiner)
writes:
>
>>Does that mean that anyone having seen a Ford and then goes off designing
>>hir own car will be sued by Ford for the reason of having been exposed
>>to Ford cars ?
>
>There is a difference between reading the source, and using the
>program.
>
>HAS ANYONE COMPARED THE CODE THEMSELVES? Could someone with a source
>license FTP the damn NET2 release, pass them through "indent" and then
>compare them?
Well, considering some aspects of the suit, I hope that nobody who has
seen AT&T code will admit to the fact on the net, but I can state that
somebody close to me has compared some selected BSDI and SVR4 sources
and has found very little similarity. Where there was similarity, the
AT&T sources also contained copyright notices from the Regents of the
University of California. The dissimilarity goes to the point that the
parameters to certain key functions are different in number, type and
meaning. With the exception of AT&T borrowing from UCB, they would
appear to be different implementations of an operating system of the
kind defined by POSIX.
--
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