Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!
sdl!plts!tal
From: tal@plts.uucp (Tom Limoncelli)
Subject: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp>
Followup-To: comp.unix.bsd
Organization: Tom's Box of Ahedonia
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1992 02:05:13 GMT
Lines: 179
I'm posting this without any comments. I just thought it might be good
fodder (though I'm not sure for which side).
(It does contain some new news.)
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
COPIED WITH PERMISSION OF UNIGRAM X COPYRIGHT (C) UNIGRAM PRODUCTS LTD.
------------------------------------------------------
London, August 3-7, 1992
Issue 396
+ NOW UNIX SYSTEM LABS TURNS THE HEAT
ON UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA OVER BERKELEY CODE
In an unprecedented action against one of its own educational
licencees, Unix System Laboratories has filed suit in the US
federal courts against the University of California, Berkeley,
charging the prestigious institution with breach of contract,
copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and
Lanham Trademark Act violations. The move makes UC Berkeley a
party to USL's existing suit against software start-up Berkeley
Software Design Inc (UX Nos 392, 394) for unfair competition,
deceptive trade practices and false advertising. USL has now
amended that suit against BSDI to include additional charges of
copyright infringement, trade secret violations and inducing
breach of contract.
Harassment
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." BSDI, an alleged spin-off
of UC Berkeley's Computer Sciences Research Group, author of the
famous Berkeley code, is attempting to commercialise a 386
operating system called BSD/386 based on the university's Network
Release 2. Berkeley and BSDI claim NET2 is AT&T code-free and
owes no licensing fees to USL. USL says it "knows for a fact"
NET2 contains proprietary AT&T code. USL also says UC Berkeley
rebuffed every proposal it put forward over the last few months
to resolve the dispute without recourse to litigation. 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. CSRG, in what appears to be a form
letter over the signature of CSRG team member Marshall Kirk
McKusick, made written representations to BSDI on April 30, 1991
that Berkeley software "may be freely redistributed...." and
"requires no previous licence, either from AT&T or The Regents of
the University of California." The university reportedly picked
McKusick as one of its evaluators.
Public opinion
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. BSDI, which the USL suit suggests is in
collusion with CSRG, declines to publicly identify any of its
founders or investors declaring such information "proprietary" on
the basis that BSDI is a closely held company. No names appear on
BSDI's papers of incorporation except the company's nominal
president Rick Adams who was described to Unigram last week by
Donnalyn Frey, BSDI's spokesman, as merely a figurehead, soon to
be replaced when BSDI completes its current search for a chief
executive. Adams, she said, is actually the president of UUNet
Technologies, a long-established company currently distributing
BSD/386. Donnalyn, well-known as Usenix's erstwhile spokesman,
should know since she is in fact Mrs Rick Adams. Besides
McKusick, there are other ties between CSRG and BSDI. According
to an April filing with the Virginia Commission on Corporations,
where BSDI is headquartered, CSRG senior programmer Keith Bostic
and former CSRG mainstay Mike Karels, the acknowledged architect
of the university's 4.3 BSD release, are also directors of BSDI.
BSDI describes Karels simply as an employee, claiming he joined
the company after BSD/386 was established. Another director is
Don Seeley, an employee of UUNet Technologies, the supplier of
UUNet. 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. 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. More details on page four.
+ 100,000 USERS HAVE YET ANOTHER BERKELEY VARIANT - 386BSD...
by Maureen O'Gara
Besides Berkeley Software Design Inc's BSD/386 operating system,
there is another body of 386 code making the rounds. That code
got started in conjunction with the same University of California
lab that BSDI's did and traces its roots first to 4.3BSD Tahoe
and ultimately to the same NET2 subset source. This code is
confusingly named 386BSD after the original 386BSD project kicked
off in the university's Computer Systems Research Group in 1989.
The man who says he named both pieces of software is former
386BSD project leader and principal developer of BSD 2.8 and 2.9,
Bill Jolitz. Jolitz reportedly mortgaged his house to start the
initial 386BSD project and subsequently finished it in his own
time. The code and its rationale were published over the course
of a year in Dr Dobb's Journal beginning in January of 1991. It
was also picked up by Dr Dobbs' sister publication Unix Magazin
in Germany. The full code has been available on InterNet for the
last two months and was to go on CompuServe last week, according
to Dr Dobbs' editor Jonathan Erickson. He estimates that 386BSD
is currently in the hands of 100,000 people. Jolitz, interviewed
by Unigram.X last week, says that his 386BSD, at least in its
initial versions, was encumbered. He also says that 386BSD is the
basis of BSDI's BSD/386 which he worked on in 1991 at CSRG
initially under the financial sponsorship of UUNet Technologies.
Last summer his cheques started coming from BSDI. He claims he
was never officially hired by BSDI and signed no employment
contract with the firm, which he believes is the brainchild of
UUNet chief Rick Adams and former CSRG staffer Mike Karels who
was best man at Jolitz's wedding. However, Jolitz was apparently
crucial to the project since none of BSDI's principals, alias
CSRG's staffers, knew much about 386 Berkeley and couldn't
maintain it. 386BSD was originally intended to be "a university
curiosity," Jolitz said, a non-commercial, non-industrial
strength way for students, facility and researchers to have
access to Berkeley code on inexpensive machines. Increasingly
through last year it became apparent that what CSRG wanted was
"basically the same thing as BSDI:" an unencumbered commercial
system. Ultimately, he says, he opposed it since it would mean
terminating the 386BSD project, an action CSRG has taken, as well
as having him renege on a published promise to produce freely
accessible 386 code. He broke with BSDI in November, he says, but
not before Usenix mysteriously refused to allow him to present a
paper on his 386 work and BSDI offered to cut him in - in return
for the title to his house. The first tack he regards as a way
for CSRG/BSDI to limit competition. The second tactic he regards
as an attempt to keep him in line. He says he attempted to bring
what was happening to the attention of university authorities
such as CSRG's faculty overseer Susan Graham and its Office of
Technology Licensing but was sluffed off. He claims the
university is guilty of "incompetent stewardship." He
subsequently received letters from CSRG and university counsel
claiming that all the work he had contributed to Berkeley since
NET2 was "University proprietary," a phrase he had never heard
before. In November he was asked to destroy all his own work and
anything in his possession having to do with Berkeley or 386. He
says he complied and rewrote the current 386BSD Release 0.0 from
scratch. He says he receives no money from BSDI for his code
though he alleges BSDI has told its customers that he does.
Jolitz does not believe NET2 is encumbered.
+ ...AS BSDI PUTS THE WORD ON THE NET
The week before last, BSDI put the full text of Unix System Labs'
initial complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet,
ostensibly because so many people were asking to see the exact
wording - see front page. As might be expected, the move has
stirred up a hornet's nest of academic fear and loathing against
USL 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.
USL's suit asks the courts to oblige UC Berkeley to abide by its
license from USL. It also wants the school to recall all copies
of NET2. USL is seeking an unstipulated amount of actual and
compensatory damages from UC Berkeley as well as legal fees. It
wants the same from BSDI plus punitive damages. BSDI is
reportedly getting set to move from a beta to a gamma version of
BSD/386 either this week or next. It says it has distributed over
300 copies of the beta system to an assortment of users including
hackers, old DOS buffs and big brand name computer makers. BSDI
is also getting ready to expand its distributor base.
--
Tom Limoncelli goshicanneverthinkofwhattoputinmydotsignaturemaybeifijustwrite
-- t...@plts.uucp lotsoftextnobodywillnoticethatiamnotreallysayinganythinggee
-- uunet!sdl!plts!tal thatissortofusenetinamicrocosmisntitpeopletalkingonand
-- t...@warren.mentorg.com onandnotreallysayinganythingwowhowutterlyironicofme
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!pasteur!toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bostic
From: bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Sender: n...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (NNTP Poster)
Nntp-Posting-Host: toe.cs.berkeley.edu
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp>
Date: Sat, 1 Aug 1992 04:23:44 GMT
Lines: 21
Tom, you didn't include my favorite part of the UNIGRAM.X newsletter!
+ MINIGRAMS
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) - and this before the news hits the
fan that the University of California, Berkeley is being brought
up on charges too. The group, reminiscent of the old drug-happy
hippy-freak Unix culture that was so enamoured of free software,
was at one point calling for a boycott of AT&T services. Sources
say Unix System Labs didn't exactly want to sue the university,
but basically has no choice and regards this as a test case.
To borrow Wagner's words, are these guys fair, accurate and unbiased
journalists, or what?
Just another drug-happy, hippy-freak programmer,
--keith
Path: sparky!uunet!gatech!purdue!yuma!csn!raven!rcd
From: r...@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.071226@eklektix.com>
Date: 1 Aug 92 07:12:26 GMT
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp>
Organization: eklektix - Boulder, Colorado
Lines: 8
Thanks to Tom Limoncelli for posting parts of that Unigram-X article. I
was able to make the connection to having seen a sample copy of it at a
Uniforum a couple years ago--is it still printed on yellow paper?? :-)
Now and then I've wondered what would be the trade-press equivalent of the
US's "National Enquirer"...wish I'd known it was there all along...
--
Dick Dunn r...@raven.eklektix.com -or- raven!rcd Boulder, Colorado
...I'm not cynical - just experienced.
Path: sparky!uunet!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!
horse.ee.lbl.gov!torek
From: to...@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> <leb.712651912@Hypatia>
<3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com>
Reply-To: to...@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.712651912@Hypatia> l...@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 <3YWH...@taronga.com> pe...@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: to...@ee.lbl.gov
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!
ames!pasteur!toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bostic
From: bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug1.215836.19297@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: 1 Aug 92 21:58:36 GMT
References: <l7k5fqINNgc9@neuro.usc.edu> <l7k6maINNgeg@neuro.usc.edu>
<l7k72rINNgfn@neuro.usc.edu>
Sender: n...@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU (NNTP Poster)
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Lines: 12
Nntp-Posting-Host: toe.cs.berkeley.edu
In article <l7k72rINN...@neuro.usc.edu> mer...@neuro.usc.edu (merlin) writes:
>In article <> bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic) writes:
>
>> ... Unix System Labs didn't exactly want to sue the university,
>> but basically has no choice and regards this as a test case.
Just to be clear, I DID NOT originate the above statement. It was a
quote from the recent UNIGRAM.X article that happened to be included in
an article I posted. For obvious reasons, it's not a good idea for me
to speculate on USL's motives or goals.
Keith Bostic
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!rpi!crdgw1!rdsunx.crd.ge.com!ariel!davidsen
From: david...@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> <leb.712651912@Hypatia>
<3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Sender: use...@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP)
Reply-To: david...@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen)
Organization: GE Corporate R&D Center, Schenectady NY
Lines: 45
Nntp-Posting-Host: ariel.crd.ge.com
In article <25...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, to...@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.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!edcastle!aiai!jeff
From: j...@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 <1992Aug3.143259.23...@crd.ge.com> david...@crd.ge.com
(bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <25...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, to...@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
Path: sparky!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mips!odin!
sgihub!sgitokyo!kandall
From: kand...@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: <KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
Sender: n...@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, j...@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) said:
Jeff> In article <1992Aug3.143259.23...@crd.ge.com> david...@crd.ge.com
(bill davidsen) writes:
>In article <25...@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, to...@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 ...)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!pacbell.com!rtech!ingres!jpk
From: j...@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM>
Reply-To: j...@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>
<KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
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 j...@ingres.com
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!sgigate!odin!twilight!speaker.wpd.sgi.com!coolidge
From: cooli...@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: <o5n24ss@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>
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>
<KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
<1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM>
Sender: n...@twilight.wpd.sgi.com ( CNews Account at twilight.wpd.sgi.com )
Organization: Silicon Graphics, Inc.
Lines: 19
In article <1992Aug4.162951.25...@pony.Ingres.COM>, j...@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
cooli...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!usc!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!eff!world!geoff
From: ge...@world.std.com (Geoff Collyer)
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <BsHpDC.J7z@world.std.com>
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>
<KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
<1992Aug4.162951.25999@pony.Ingres.COM> <o5n24ss@twilight.wpd.sgi.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.
Path: sparky!uunet!mcsun!Germany.EU.net!unido!adagio!grog
From: g...@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <1845@adagio.UUCP>
Date: 12 Aug 92 13:12:25 GMT
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.071226@eklektix.com>
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
Lines: 26
In article <1992Aug1.071...@eklektix.com> r...@raven.eklektix.com (Dick Dunn)
writes:
>Thanks to Tom Limoncelli for posting parts of that Unigram-X article. I
>was able to make the connection to having seen a sample copy of it at a
>Uniforum a couple years ago--is it still printed on yellow paper?? :-)
Well, it's a sort of dull off-yellow. Compugram is bright yellow.
>Now and then I've wondered what would be the trade-press equivalent of the
>US's "National Enquirer"...wish I'd known it was there all along...
In fact, on the whole both it and its sister Compugram (daily) are not
bad publications. Note that they are very timely: they were the first
people to report this stuff (this wasn't the first time they mentioned
it - I found out about the suit from Unigram-X, not from the net).
I have learnt to skip Maureen O'Gara's viewpoint of the world a long
time ago, but maybe she's not alone in her views. After all, she's
been working for both publications for at least a couple of years. It
would be short-sighted to think everybody thinks the way we do, and
maybe this viewpoint is just a rather extreme complement of what the
average hacker thinks of `suits'.
--
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