Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!gwh
From: g...@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Embroiled in Computer Software Lawsuit
Date: 29 Jan 1993 18:41:51 GMT
Organization: Dis-
Lines: 78
Sender: g...@soda.berkeley.edu
Message-ID: <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1993Jan26.221218.8133@igor.tamri.com> <106742@netnews.upenn.edu>
<1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Challenge to John Bass.
In article <1993Jan27.215738.12...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
writes:
>I picked 3 of the many postings and letters to respond to. If this doesn't
>get the point across we will have to start the trial here by taking each
>and every source module and picking it apart until people get the idea
>that Berkeley screwed up big time.
Please do so. I'm not going to be personally satisfied until
I see this sort of evidence, and lacking any access to AT&T source,
I can't do it myself.
>Unfortunately, it appears that most the respondants are to young to have
>any actual memory of the events first hand ... and are just parroting
>the folklore they have learned.
Ad homoneim, John. Stick to either facts or philosophy of intellectual
protection.
>Many of the others just lack critical thinking and social skills necessary
>to properly evalutate to issues and respond in a responsible way.
See above.
>Protection of these rights is absolutely necessary to protect not only
>the computer industry, but the entire technical, information, publishing
>and entertainment industries as well. No matter how much the newbies want
>free/low cost UNIX, 386BSD is a direct violation of AT&T/USL property
>rights.
>
>To strip AT&T of the right to protect it's UNIX property is wrong, no matter
>how much you may hate AT&T or the Bell System. To bully their employees,
>or picket their booths or offices, or any other action regarding their
>attempt to protect their investment of more than 10,000 man years and
>$5,000,000,000 expenses to develop, support, and market this product --
>is simply as flawed and wrong as the UCB team that plagiarized UNIX
>components for the Net2 and 386BSD releases. UCB has not, will not, can
>not EVER invest this amount of man power or dollars to make a software
>product -- if not for any other reason than the people of California will
>not allow their taxes to be spent competing unfairly with private business.
John, I hereby challenge you to demonstrate publically that any
code from Berkeley's Net/2 distribution is close enough to any
AT&T version that it's plagarism and copyright infringement.
Note that "general form" wont' cut it, under any interpretation
of copyright law as I understand it. I want to see procedures
that are the exact same, or just have had variable names altered,
or something similar. Or a damn good argument as to why two
pieces of code that do the same thing, but are written from scratch
by two seperate people at different places, are covered under one
copyright, and examples thereof.
Even more annoying is your insistance that UCB computer science
graduates might be "tainted" by the "blatant CSRG copyright violations",
especially since you at the same time are insisting that holding
USL employees to task for what we believe are wrongdoings of their
company is morally wrong. I smell a significant morality
bias here, and I don't like it.
And, as to wether UCB has ever invested the manpower to build
software products, well, you're wrong. I can think of a couple
off the top of my head. Sounds to me like you're speaking from a position
of ignorance about UCB's activities over the last fifteen years.
There are perfectly professional ways to argue USL's case; so far,
you aren't doing any of them. You allege that USL is right, but
refused to provide the evidence that, if provided, WILL change at
least my (and almost certainly every other rational Usenet readers)
opinion on the case. The evidence will come out sooner or later
and I'd prefer it be sooner; either CSRG lied about legally making
BSD AT&T-Free, or USL is lying about how close the similarities are.
In either case, some pretty serious shit is going to come down
on someone when the evidence is available. The code will tell,
but as of yet it hasn't. So let the code speak.
-george william herbert
g...@lurnix.com g...@soda.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!seas.gwu.edu!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!
igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 1 (Attn: AT&T/USL)
Message-ID: <1993Feb2.224922.23644@igor.tamri.com>
Organization: DMS Design
References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
<1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 22:49:22 GMT
Lines: 102
In article <1kbtpf$...@agate.berkeley.edu> g...@soda.berkeley.edu
(George William Herbert) writes:
>In article <1993Jan27.215738.12...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com
>(John Bass) writes:
>>I picked 3 of the many postings and letters to respond to. If this doesn't
>>get the point across we will have to start the trial here by taking each
>>and every source module and picking it apart until people get the idea
>>that Berkeley screwed up big time.
>
>Please do so. I'm not going to be personally satisfied until
>I see this sort of evidence, and lacking any access to AT&T source,
>I can't do it myself.
Ok ... here goes a series of postings over the next couple weeks or so,
but first I need to respond to a few preliminary jabs ...
>>Unfortunately, it appears that most the respondants are to young to have
>>any actual memory of the events first hand ... and are just parroting
>>the folklore they have learned.
>
>Ad homoneim, John. Stick to either facts or philosophy of intellectual
>protection.
This unfortunately is simple fact ... 90% of the postings in support of UCB
contain serious mis-representations of either fact and/or history. You strongly
support UCB and claim they have done no wrong ... but then attempt to claim
"lacking any access to AT&T source, I can't do it (prove UCB justified) myself".
Testimony presenting evidence requires first hand knowledge, not hearsay.
Anyone doing a followup posting to the following chain of postings should
clearly state their credentials so that our network jury can separate and
weigh the testimony and evidence to be presented in the postings which follow.
Clearly state your:
1) name
2) Age
3) Formal Training
4) Industry experience
5) degree of UNIX source code knowledge
6) degree of BACH textbook knowledge
My Name is John Bass, I'm 41 and hold a degree in Computer Science from
CalPoly State Univ, San Luis Obispo, California. I have been working in
the industry since 1968 and have been doing UNIX systems programming since
1975. I have done two UNIX cross architecture ports of the UNIX Operating
System largely by myself (compiler and non-OS work done by other members of
the team), and have direct UNIX internals source experience with 11 other UNIX
ports. My last three years were spent at SCO working with source for
XENIX, SCO UNIX/ODT, AT&T/USL, MIPS and OSF. I have read/reviewed most of
the Bach book.
I present my facts and arguments as an "expert witness". I have no conflict
of interest ... I have no past or current relationship with UCB, USL, BSDI
or any other party named or part of the official legal proceedings.
If you have a rebuttal to any FACT, present only FACTS which you have
either first hand experience with, or cite the published/written reference
you base your argument on. Do not post "I think" or "I feel" arguments.
>>Protection of these rights is absolutely necessary to protect not only
>>the computer industry, but the entire technical, information, publishing
>>and entertainment industries as well. No matter how much the newbies want
>>free/low cost UNIX, 386BSD is a direct violation of AT&T/USL property
>>rights.
>>
>>To strip AT&T of the right to protect it's UNIX property is wrong, no matter
>>how much you may hate AT&T or the Bell System. To bully their employees,
>>or picket their booths or offices, or any other action regarding their
>>attempt to protect their investment of more than 10,000 man years and
>>$5,000,000,000 expenses to develop, support, and market this product --
>>is simply as flawed and wrong as the UCB team that plagiarized UNIX
>>components for the Net2 and 386BSD releases. UCB has not, will not, can
>>not EVER invest this amount of man power or dollars to make a software
>>product -- if not for any other reason than the people of California will
>>not allow their taxes to be spent competing unfairly with private business.
>
>John, I hereby challenge you to demonstrate publically that any
>code from Berkeley's Net/2 distribution is close enough to any
>AT&T version that it's plagarism and copyright infringement.
I love a challenge and debate.
To examine source code, we will need to introduce several virgin UNIX
source files into evidence ... Would AT&T/USL please help this forum by
posting (introducing into evidence) the V7/32V source modules for the bio,
clock and tty services. In addition would I would like a copyright release
for using the Bach puesdocode descriptions corresponding to bio, clock, and
tty services for discussion in this forum. The V7/32V source modules and
Bach puedocode posted into this news group should be clearly identified,
with copyright and the restriction that the modules are only to be used
for discussion inside this newsgroup -- IE. they are not to be copied outside
this news group and/or used for any other purpose.
While the plagiarism and violation of AT&T/USL rights is not limited
to these three modules ... they do represent clearly the degree that UCB
violated AT&T UNIX code rights.
Stand by ... continued to next posting
John Bass
DMS Design
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!news.claremont.edu!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 2 (opening arguments)
Message-ID: <1993Feb3.002534.5637@igor.tamri.com>
Organization: DMS Design
References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
<1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 00:25:34 GMT
Lines: 163
In article <1kbtpf$...@agate.berkeley.edu> g...@soda.berkeley.edu
(George William Herbert) writes:
>Note that "general form" wont' cut it, under any interpretation
>of copyright law as I understand it. I want to see procedures
>that are the exact same, or just have had variable names altered,
>or something similar. Or a damn good argument as to why two
>pieces of code that do the same thing, but are written from scratch
>by two seperate people at different places, are covered under one
>copyright, and examples thereof.
A number of people have taken this stand, and they clearly fail to
understand what the copyright law and corresponding case law do and
don't protect. Presenting this in it's entirety would take many
hundreds of pages ... the summary that follows is to my best
understanding accurate:
Taken from "Numerical recipes in C", copyright Cambridge University Press
1988, preface page xv, which is a book of algorithms and they address the
issue of use carefully:
"Like artistic or literary compositions, computer programs can be
protected by copyright. Generally it is an infringement for you
to copy into your computer a program from a copyrighted source. It
is also not a friendly thing to do, since it deprives the program's
author of compensation for his or her creative effort. Although
this book and its programs are copyrighted, we specifically authorize
you, a reader of the book, to make one machine-readable copy of each
program for your own use. You may wish to consider purchasing this
book's collected programs in one of the machine-readable formats that
are available (see front of book). Distribution of the machine-readable
programs (either as copied by you or as purchased) to any other person
is not authorized.
"Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those
ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the
ideas consist of the programs's methodology and algorithm, including
the sequence of processes adopted by the programmer. The expression
ideas is the program source code and it's derived object code.
"If you analyze the ideas contained in a program, and then express
those ideas in your own distinct implementation, then that new program
implementation belongs to you. ...
"The fact that ideas are legally "free as air" in no way supersedes
ethical requirement that ideas be credited to their known originators.
... "
Sentence one accurately reflects a framework for "fair-use" of material
presented any book.
Sentence two accurately represents "ownership" under current case law,
"methodology, algorithms, and sequence of processes". To translate the
methodology, algorithms, and sequence of processes into any other form
does not change the ownership. This means between puesdo code, english,
C, or any other languague - human or machine readable.
Sentence three represents **part** of the requirements to distinguish
ownership. Additional case law imparts more requirements for reverse
engineering of major works ... those works that extend beyond a simple
collection of ideas.
Sentence four imparts the ethical requirements that go beyond case law,
and that nearly every research community strictly requires. This is
the simple protection from plagiarizm.
I will later show that Net-2 and 386BSD release by UCB violates the
AT&T ownership by maintaining the same "methodology, algorithms and
sequence of processes" in nearly all of the code cloned from both
UNIX source and Bach puedocode.
In turn, this will show that UCB both violates the AT&T Source License
agreement and the Bach copyright, including any possible fair-use. In
addition it will be shown that UCB directly used the AT&T design, both
source code and Bach, without crediting the source of the "methodology,
algorithms, and sequence of processes" - which is blatantly simple
plagiarizm by any definition in the research community.
*** In the mean time, I urge readers to review the above, find your own
copy of Bach and examine the clock, tty and bio code in 386BSD. ****
.... now as an aside, I will respond to a couple more jabs ....
Every CS faculty member should fully understand the above, as well
as standards for plagiarism ... long before they managed to get their
PhD. Every CS student should understand this as well prior to entering
the work place. This is not a minor issue to ignore ... and the
general tone of the postings up to this point (including rebuttals to
my postings) show a lack of understanding of software ownership.
In article <1kbtpf$...@agate.berkeley.edu> g...@soda.berkeley.edu
(George William Herbert) writes:
>Even more annoying is your insistance that UCB computer science
>graduates might be "tainted" by the "blatant CSRG copyright violations",
>especially since you at the same time are insisting that holding
>USL employees to task for what we believe are wrongdoings of their
>company is morally wrong. I smell a significant morality
>bias here, and I don't like it.
First of all, I made no such claim that "graduates might be `tainted'".
What I did say was:
"I think hiring managers should be boycot hiring UCB grads until
they clean up their act on plagiarism and require all existing
students to attend a class on intelectual property rights.
"I also think that all faculty, staff, and student assistants that
participated and/or condoned this piracy should be removed or
severely disciplined."
Since UCB faculty and staff are attempting to ignore their plagiarism,
then it's time to enforce what are considered to be acceptable limits,
and make sure the students that take their side "as the truth" are
properly "informed" in what the rest of the research community and
commercial work places EXPECT. Given both your response, and those
from a number of other UCB students (as well as students from other
campus sites), it is clear that many of you have views which are
counter to either Law or Practice. As stated by one recient graduate:
"I just wanted to thank you for your recent posting to
alt.suit.att-bsdi. As a fairly recent CS grad I had a
very distorted (biased) view of the BSD<->ATT relationship.
While I disagree with some of what you said, and want to
disagree with more you have, however, painted a fairly clear
picture of the facts.
...
"An ethics class would be a good idea in any CS curriculum,
CS majors seem to play a little fast and loose with other
people's work (just a personal observation)."
People boycot the products and services of organizations ALL THE TIME
to provide social and economic presure on the org. This causes employees
to loose their jobs/raises all the time ... and is one of the desired
personal costs to make life difficult for management inside the org.
Unions take this one step farther and directly hasle other union workers
that cross the picket line. To boycot UCB, is to boycot it's products
-- graduates -- making students directly aware and involved in the
process will not only reduce it's admission applications, but place
presure on the administration to stop stalling and resolve the dispute.
It also sends the clear message that plagiarism is not acceptable in
either school or industry.
Management under current business law can and are held directly
responsible for their actions in a vast number of crimes.
Unfortunately, this same access is missing go after to government
management. In this case individuals broke the law, with forethought,
knowing that at worst they would loose their job. Had the same occured
in business, the corporate exec's and middle management could have
been held directly responsible -- that gives them the urge to
CYA and keep tabs on things below. In this case, no one can be, just
the State of Calif/UCB -- leads to selective blindness and I didn't
knows.
In naming UCB in the BSDI suit, USL did not ask for damages from
UCB, just a simple acknowledgement that UCB violated AT&T/USL rights.
AT&T/USL could have, and may yet, get mad enough at UCB to ask
for damages.
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!pagesat!netsys!decwrl!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!
saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 3 (Let the code speak)
Message-ID: <1993Feb3.095304.3744@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 3 Feb 93 09:53:04 GMT
References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
<1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: DMS Design
Lines: 157
In article <1kbtpf$...@agate.berkeley.edu> g...@soda.berkeley.edu
(George William Herbert) writes:
>And, as to wether UCB has ever invested the manpower to build
>software products, well, you're wrong. I can think of a couple
>off the top of my head. Sounds to me like you're speaking from a position
>of ignorance about UCB's activities over the last fifteen years.
Again ... if you wish to quote me do so, but don't put words into my
mouth. What I said was:
"To strip AT&T of the right to protect it's UNIX property is wrong,
no matter how much you may hate AT&T or the Bell System. To bully
their employees, or picket their booths or offices, or any other
action regarding their attempt to protect their investment of more
than 10,000 man years and $5,000,000,000 expenses to develop,
support, and market this product -- is simply as flawed and wrong
as the UCB team that plagiarized UNIX components for the Net2 and
386BSD releases. UCB has not, will not, can not EVER invest this
amount of man power or dollars to make a software product -- if
not for any other reason than the people of California will
not allow their taxes to be spent competing unfairly with private
business."
Now I am not aware, nor are the people of California, that UCB has the
extra funds available to launch a product development of the Billion Dollar
size. I would think that after all the budget cuts, UCB should be focusing
it's funding on training students, not competing unfairly with private
business.
The point is two fold:
1) AT&T has a serious interest in the UNIX product and has brought
to bear funding which forms an investment that should be allowed
to yeild dividends for it's stockholders (who are largely common
folk -- or the pension funds of common folk).
2) UCB's entire development effort represents about 1% of the AT&T
development effort. The PRODUCT IS AT&T's ... UCB's efforts are
a minor project in the grand scheme of things.
>There are perfectly professional ways to argue USL's case; so far,
>you aren't doing any of them. You allege that USL is right, but
>refused to provide the evidence that, if provided, WILL change at
>least my (and almost certainly every other rational Usenet readers)
>opinion on the case. The evidence will come out sooner or later
>and I'd prefer it be sooner; either CSRG lied about legally making
>BSD AT&T-Free, or USL is lying about how close the similarities are.
>In either case, some pretty serious shit is going to come down
>on someone when the evidence is available. The code will tell,
>but as of yet it hasn't. So let the code speak.
>
>-george william herbert
>g...@lurnix.com g...@soda.berkeley.edu
Actually what I have done so far, is declare "the emperor has no clothes" to
the loyal UCB followers, and got flamed at. I have stated that IF you take
the time you will find a serious connection between Bach and 386BSD, and
in addition, have stated my first hand observations about such. This is
hardly a refusal to provide evidence.
I did not notice you requiring the same level of "professionalism" on the
loyal UCB flaming team.
To go beyond this requires introducing AT&T copyrighted matter into my
postings ... which would make me nearly as guilty as UCB and give people
a real reason to flame me ... as well as piss off AT&T.
If AT&T/USL is willing to support their defense in this forum, I expect
we will see a posting of the requested source modules and a public release
to use selected Bach pseudocode (happy David?) in this discussion ...
hopefully within a few days.
For those of you without 386BSD sources,
1) you may uucp the interesting parts from uunet archives.
2) you may ftp agate.berkeley.edu from a 386/486 UNIX box
cd into pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/srcdist
mget the entire directory
cat src01.?? | compress -d | cpio -idumv
Extracting the files on other than a 386/486 port may prove interesting
due to byte/word swap problems.
Mean while, those of you that have/had AT&T source access to the V7 kernel,
please follow along with my introduction to 386bsd standalone code. This
code represents strong prior knowledge of AT&T UNIX source, and at the very
best is in the heavily tainted gray area.
One of the curious features of a unix system is the bootstrap sequence,
as briefly mentioned in Bach on Page 235. There are few other references
in the literature to base any design decisions on. This code is what
you could call very obscure at best. There is a simplistic syncronous
driver design interfaced via the bdevsw using iob structures with a UNIX
like API.
UCB 386BSD manages to replicate the design with important parts of the
original AT&T UNIX structure intact. This was not an accident since the
AT&T functionality in the stand library is more than is simply required by
boot to load /unix. The re-write is largely different only by the choice
of the API ... using namei instead of open, and iread instead of read.
Now these iob structures are a lot like UNIX buf structures ... and many of
us always wondered why they were not called buf structures too ... it is
more curious that the UCB 386BSD code follows this variable naming as well,
something that forms a very distinctive "finger print" suggesting a
re-write and not a new design. Ditto with the variable names inside the
iob structure, choice of bdevsw structure, choice of including little
known utilities like cat ... which would have more naturally been special
cased inside the command line code of boot. Then there is the name of the
include file .... "saio.h"
Now in the UCB 386BSD re-write they were careful to not directly use the
AT&T API or other common UNIX standalone procedure/variable names and
re-org'ed the code to make it "look different". But it is close enough that
without all the UCB copyrights, a UNIX person familar with boot that hasn't
seen the AT&T code for 6 months, might well mistake major parts of the
BSD code as AT&T code.
Now this is a case where:
A) there is no public document which describes the internals of boot
at this level of detail that I am aware of.
B) the choice of design, structure, and variables follow UNIX source
code suggesting that whoever "re-wrote" it, was staring at the
UNIX standalone sources, or had a damn good memory of it.
It is not a case where two students without UNIX source access were just
given the task of designing a new boot. There are simpler ways of reaching
that goal.
Nowhere in this code is a comment that say's this code is derived from
or is patterned after the rather novel UNIX standalone library. No credit
what-so-ever is given to the orignal BTL designer or AT&T/USL.
No other operating system I am aware of has a boot designed like this ...
for the UCB 386BSD design to follow the AT&T design closely, indicates
plagiarizm based upon prior/concurrent source code access. It clearly
contains the same "methodology and algorithms, including the sequence of
processes adopted by the programmer" which is the test by which we must
judge.
If there is anyone out there with UNIX AT&T source for stand that sees
this differently, please make a case for how the UCB standalone design
is significantly different and novel. Do not post AT&T source ... assume
our reader jurors have it, but provide detailed explainations of how you
form the opinion that it was not derived from AT&T source. Please be sure
to provide public references that can explain the detailed design choices
used to re-write boot, without having AT&T source access or design knowledge.
More to follow ... hopefully AT&T will post the requested source modules
so we can get a little more detailed for you non-unix source people.
stay tuned ...
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!crdgw1!rpi!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!saimiri.primate.wisc.edu!
ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 4 (copyright & derived works)
Message-ID: <1993Feb3.175211.13214@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 3 Feb 93 17:52:11 GMT
References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
<1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: DMS Design
Lines: 67
In regard to derived works, standards from other parts of the publishing
industries need to be examined. Take music for example.
If we have a well known piece, like "Jingle Bells" and someone comes along
with a tune that sounds just like it ... IE has the same rhythm and melody
... then we without question would call it a rendition of "Jingle Bells",
no matter how much the author claims it to be a new piece ... even if
EVERY note, EVERY chord, and every other technical description is different
from the original.
No matter how much the author whines, we presume that he heard it atleast
once and his song was derived from the original melody. To play the song
and with a striaght face call it original is plagiarizm. To play the song
and introduce it as your rendition of the original is called creativity.
If the original author or publisher still retains a valid copyright, then
you may be able to play the tune to yourself in the privacy of your home,
but to play it in public would be illegal unless you obtain the right to
do so from the copyright holder.
This is the context on how to apply the scrutiny of "methodology and
algorithms, including the sequence of processes adopted by the programmer"
to works that are suspected of derivation.
For those of you with source access, review stand & boot with this frame of
mind ... nearly every line of code is different (notes & chords), but the
basic design and structure (melody) remains the same. Now start reviewing
other code segments of 386BSD, for we will be appling this tests over and
over.
In the academic and research community, plagiarizm is a serious issue.
At some point, UCB is going to have to come to grips with it and the wrongs
inflicted on AT&T by their actions. In this case the widely public release
of a closely derived work is nearly irrevocable. Even if every copy of
386BSD is removed from every archive site, the private copies will continue
to be pirated for years. I present the following compromise:
1) UCB official acknowledge the plagiarizm and violation of AT&T's
right of authorship. UCB would cease any further UNIX related
development developments, and would be forever banned from doing
so. UCB individuals involved would be formally reprimanded
using existing university guidelines for plagiarizm.
2) The "internet/usenet community" remove all copies of 386BSD from
all archives. Bill & Lynn Jolitz will cease any further 386BSD
development.
3) BSDI principles will cease any further 386BSD related development
and disband.
4) AT&T in return would provide a new low cost source license for
UNIX V7/32V with source redistribution rights. Fee's would be
on the order of $1,000 for the source redistribution license,
and $50 per copy reproduced. Distribution format would be
limited to CD-ROM's with serial numbers. Existing derivations
of 386BSD, with the inclusion of notice of ownership by AT&T/USL,
would be re-distributable under this source license. Anyone
publishing under this license will be required to make ALL derived
sources for any binaries distributed available.
While I don't think this is a heavy enough punishment for the individuals
involved, I do think the compromise is fair to everyone involved. Everyone
involved gets a slap on the hand, and AT&T with the support of the community
gains a revenue stream in exchange for making this older sources base widely
available for home users and students.
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!opl.com!hri.com!spool.mu.edu!howland.reston.ans.net!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!haven.umd.edu!ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 5 (corrections and request)
Message-ID: <1993Feb4.013613.24271@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 4 Feb 93 01:36:13 GMT
References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com>
<1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Organization: DMS Design
Lines: 46
Ok I've had it too ... which is why I even started this mess.
My source knowledge largely stops at SVR3.2 ... I've had over two
dozen people TELL me that Sun/BSD code is in SVR4 complete with UCB COPYRIGHT
notices ... some of which I assumed to know what they were talking about.
The problem with this damn netnews is that people don't provide their
qualifications and just post away ... it makes it damn hard to
figure out who is blowing steam and who is tring to clearify the issue.
In addition, I don't currently have a client with a source license
past SVR2 to even be able to look for myself.
*****************
I am the first to say I am wrong when shown so, and please do so,
for I hate to make an ass of myself due to other peoples mis-information.
*****************
Now can someone who knows clear this up?
> In article <1993Feb2.204838.16...@igor.tamri.com> you write:
>
> >An even stronger point is that the Sun OS is a much enhanced BSD port, and
> >what you find in SVR4 is Sun OS code that was provided by Sun to USL.
> >USL did the right thing in making sure that ANY file that contained
> >anything possibly derived from BSD by SUN contain the BSD copyright.
> >
> >It's sad the UCB didn't extend this same recognition to USL/AT&T/BTL
> >in the Net2 and 386BSD releases.
>
> I just can't take this any more.
>
> The System V Release 4 code DOES NOT HAVE UCB COPYRIGHT NOTICES.
> Look at the netinet code. Look at the file system.
>
> You don't have the slightest clue what you're talking about.
>
> Keith Bostic
are there any other key points that need to be clearified before we proceed?
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!ukma!nntp.msstate.edu!olivea!sgigate!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Message-ID: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
Date: 5 Feb 93 10:55:10 GMT
Organization: DMS Design
Lines: 111
My frustration in the last posting (regarding the false claim by Keith Bostic)
Is a good example of about 70% of my mbox -- everybody is an expert telling
me to get my facts straight and stop re-writting history (before and after
calling me whatever).
My frustration in posting "ENOUGH" was from the long stream of postings
based on:
1) if big is bad, and AT&T is big, then everything AT&T does is bad.
2) if universities are good, and UCB is a university, every UCB
does is good.
Prior to posting "ENOUGH" I had received input about the global situtation
from a number of people, and have used the following to make my postings:
A) Things that appear to be facts(?):
1) BSDI was formed by, it's board of directors are, and it's
staff are, mostly current and/or former UCB's CSRG employees.
2) That Bill Jolitz (also CSRG staff) had also done major work for BSDI.
3) UCB, on the technical advice of the same CSRG group, claims Net-2,
the basis for Jolitz/BSDI products, is free of AT&T infringment.
4) BSDI claims no infringment, just basis on Net-2.
5) Jolitz claims no infringment, just basis on Net-2.
6) AT&T claims Net-2 infingment, code derived from UNIX sources.
7) My own review of 386BSD shows AT&T code segments and design
in major sections of the 386BSD kernel, and Net-2. The AT&T
claim seems to have ATLEAST some merit.
8) There is a strong anti-AT&T bias and pro-UCB bias in the
educational (read usenet) community.
B) Rumors with credibility:
9) There is CSRG funded work, post Net-2, common to both Jolitz & BSDI.
C) My Logic
10) This case is not about UCB, it's about CSRG staff involved in a
for-profit business (BSDI), using UCB for legal cover where they
have no personal liability for their actions.
11) The involved CSRG staff, (including Jolitz and common BSDI staff),
using the three products (Net-2, 386BSD, and BSD/386) acted out
a single goal, done with malice and forthought, of striping AT&T
of it's right to the UNIX operating system.
12) The primary motive was to make money if BSDI went big time,
the secondary motive was to enhance their prestege in the
usenix community.
13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
With this logic, I do not separate any of the players, since I belive
they acted as a group ... certainly BSDI and CSRG are tightly interconnected,
and the Jolitz and CSRG and BSDI connections appear tightly interconnected
as well. Using the same logic, ditto for the three products.
UCB management and legal staff (read California tax payers) are stuck
defending the CSRG staff and their little company BSDI ... personally I
think their budget would be better spent educating UCB students.
This is in defense of my "Enough" posting with the following major points:
"First, the group at UCB, Joltz, BSDI, and others all have acted
out a plan to attempt to place the AT&T/USL UNIX product into the
public domain. A conspiracy based in false "Robin Hood" ethics.
...
"From my view what UCB, Joltz, BSDI and others have done has neither
advanced the art nor been in the UNIX industries best interest. With
forethought and malace they incrementally attempted to place the UNIX
operating system product into the public domain by re-writting it
line by line while leaving the framework and the fabric of the system
unchanged ... same global design, major algorithms, data structures,
internal interfaces, etc ... to what end? Only to attempt to destroy
AT&T/USL UNIX as a commercial product. At best the debate has
cost more than a million wasted man-hours that could have been more
productively used to advance the art with a new design. Their actions
have been WRONG, WRONG, WRONG!"
Now a number of people have taken the "advanced the art" part of this
out of context ... my point in context is that:
Their actions (which go beyond their contributions from original
DARPA work ending with Net-2) with the goal to pirate the balance
of unix, has not "advanced the art" nor was in "the UNIX industries
best interest".
It is time to stop letting the CSRG/BSDI staff hide behind UCB ... this case
SHOULD not be about UCB ... it's about the CSRG/BSDI pirates.
The first step is to get UCB to use their own standards of plagiarism
and setup an internal review board (NOT CSRG STAFF) to review the work
done by CSRG for Net-2 and Jolitz for 386BSD. Secondly this review board,
should then become the resource to guide UCB lawyers, not CSRG staff.
I would suggest review board members come from the English Lit and
Physical Sciences schools.
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!olivea!charnel!rat!usc!howland.reston.ans.net!bogus.sura.net!
jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu!fmsrl7!lynx.unm.edu!umn.edu!noc.msc.net!uc.msc.edu!raistlin!
shamash!runyon.cim.cdc.com!pbd
From: p...@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: BSDI and W. Jolitz (in cahoots?)
Message-ID: <51782@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: 5 Feb 93 15:42:57 GMT
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
Sender: use...@shamash.cdc.com
Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc.
Lines: 34
In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com>, jb...@igor.tamri.com
(John Bass) writes:
|> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
|> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
First of all, I make no claims at being an expert in any of the topics related
to this discussion (OS design, law, etc). I'm simply a programmer with a
deep interest in OS design and a BS to help me follow that interest. I'm
only speaking up because I noticed something that goes against the public
record (usenet history).
WRT point #13. When 386BSD was first released by W. Jolitz in the spring of
1992, it was followed quickly by a rather strange open-letter from W. Jolitz
to the usenet community at large (at least *I* found it strange).
The driving force behind that letter was that W. Jolitz was upset with the
members of CSRG. He had felt betrayed by them and disagreed with what they
were doing. 386BSD was a result of his feelings regarding CSRG. He finished
the remaining work himself and released it to the public, as he felt it
should be.
Based on the tone of that letter, I would *highly* doubt that W. Jolitz would
willingly have anything to do with BSDI. Of course, arguments could be made
that W. Jolitz was deceiving everyone with that letter, but IMHO he was
very sincere and speaking his mind.
BTW, that letter was posted to comp.unix.bsd very early on (it's article # was
less than 100). Is there an archive somewhere where I can look it up? I'd
really rather that everyone examine it for themselves, instead of me posting
stuff from memory.
--
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL "p...@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
/* Just remember, you *WILL* die someday. */
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!warwick!doc.ic.ac.uk!agate!usenet.ins.cwru.edu!
howland.reston.ans.net!usc!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!
cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Message-ID: <1993Feb6.040553.25378@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Sat, 6 Feb 93 04:05:53 GMT
Lines: 137
I have removed the comp.unix.bsd from the Newsgroups line; hopefully this
will resolve the problems some people have been having with the crossposting.
In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
writes:
>My frustration in the last posting (regarding the false claim by Keith Bostic)
>Is a good example of about 70% of my mbox -- everybody is an expert telling
>me to get my facts straight and stop re-writting history (before and after
>calling me whatever).
I didn't see the entire claim by Keith Bostic, but I suspect it was quoted
out of context. Mail received from Mr. Bostic backs this up. The context
the quote was used in implied that there was no credit being given to UCB
for their code rather than a lack of observation of the licensing of the
UCB code by USL. In my response, I addressed the issue of credit, *not*
the issue of copyright. If a full documentation release of SVR4.0x is
used as a reference, there are references to some of the code (although
none of the kernel) being copyright Berkeley and distributed under what
is called "the Berkeley license". But no copy of the license is provided
with the code tree. This could be interpreted to fall inside the
constraints of Keith's statement, although this does refute the claim
of USL "plagiarism" at the same time it opens the discussion of whether
USL is abiding or is required to abide by the terms of the general UCB
license. Note that an agrement between a third party and UCB could allow
redistribution of the code without Berkeley copyright and license; the
license is only applicable to that distribution channel, much in the
same way a work under GPL can be licensed under other terms from the
author.
> A) Things that appear to be facts(?):
I'd like to contest several of these; please don't conclude that because I
don't contest something that I believe it's true; only that I don't have
sufficient information to comment.
> 2) That Bill Jolitz (also CSRG staff) had also done major work for BSDI.
This is true if one counts the work done at CSRG by Bill Jolitz following
the Net/2 release; my information indicates that this work may form a part
of BSD/386, but that this code was not used for 386BSD, which was built
using the Net/2 release as a base. Whether some of the code Mr. Jolitz did
while at CSRG was later used for BSDI, or the BSDI code was developed
independently and entirely from the Net/2 sources as well is contended by
both parties, and now USL.
> 3) UCB, on the technical advice of the same CSRG group, claims Net-2,
> the basis for Jolitz/BSDI products, is free of AT&T infringment.
There is a good-faith argument for this based on:
The Net/2 release was not a full release of the Berkeley code;
at the time, this was explained that the missing code contained
proprietary information
There is also a circumstantial basis for this claim:
USL did not pursue litigation against UCB for the Net/2 release
prior to BSDI's commercial use of the code to build an operating
system.
> 6) AT&T claims Net-2 infingment, code derived from UNIX sources.
My opinion was that USL was claiming disclosure of trade secrets, not
necessarily copyright infringements, at least in it's case against UCB.
> 8) There is a strong anti-AT&T bias and pro-UCB bias in the
> educational (read usenet) community.
Try posting it comp.sys.att! I think this *appearance* is because of where
you chose to cross-post!
> B) Rumors with credibility:
>
> 9) There is CSRG funded work, post Net-2, common to both Jolitz & BSDI.
I haven't heard this rumor. Either it isn't a rumor, or it isn't credible,
unless you are trying to start one. Either way, rumors aren't evidence of
anything other than a possible justification of "meme" theory.
> C) My Logic
>
> 10) This case is not about UCB, it's about CSRG staff involved in a
> for-profit business (BSDI), using UCB for legal cover where they
> have no personal liability for their actions.
Fie! The initial suit was against BSDI alone! Certainly the principals at
BSDI have personal liability!
> 11) The involved CSRG staff, (including Jolitz and common BSDI staff),
> using the three products (Net-2, 386BSD, and BSD/386) acted out
> a single goal, done with malice and forthought, of striping AT&T
> of it's right to the UNIX operating system.
This would be rather impossible to prove, even if it were not for the fact
of the political problems between Mr. Jolitz and CSRG and BSDI. I can't
believe this with some past postings on thier differences that they
acted in concert.
> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
Hardly. The principals involved in 386BSD are not on wonderful terms
with BSDI for the most part, especially with respect to how the future
direction of the Berkeley code legacy will be managed (commercial vs.
non-commercial). Robert Withrow can back me up here 8-).
>With this logic, I do not separate any of the players, since I belive
>they acted as a group ... certainly BSDI and CSRG are tightly interconnected,
>and the Jolitz and CSRG and BSDI connections appear tightly interconnected
>as well. Using the same logic, ditto for the three products.
You don't know what you are talking about here. I think both BSDI and
the Jolitz's would object to this (as do I, and as, apparently, does
USL, since it hasn't filed against 386BSD).
>UCB management and legal staff (read California tax payers) are stuck
>defending the CSRG staff and their little company BSDI ... personally I
>think their budget would be better spent educating UCB students.
This wouldn't be the case if only the original action were pending and
the suit had not been expanded. USL felt they had to do this to protect
their property/trade secrets. There is also both the legal precedent of
"deep pockets" and "go after everyone and let the judge sort them out",
both making sound business sense given the was the courts work.
Terry Lambert
te...@icarus.weber.edu
terry_lamb...@novell.com
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Path: sparky!uunet!enterpoop.mit.edu!spool.mu.edu!agate!toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU!bostic
From: bos...@toe.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Bostic)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Date: 6 Feb 1993 08:29:33 GMT
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <1kvstd$qum@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: toe.cs.berkeley.edu
In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
writes:
> My frustration in the last posting (regarding the false claim by Keith
> Bostic) Is a good example of about 70% of my mbox -- everybody is an
> expert telling me to get my facts straight and stop re-writting history
> (before and after calling me whatever).
Let's try this again.
I am Keith Bostic. I am a member of the CSRG. My interests and biases
on these issues are probably well-known by now and don't need elaboration.
I normally remain silent in these newsgroups because, as a University
employee, I cannot comment on litigation in which the University may
have an interest. As this particular allegation by Mr. Bass does not
involve that litigation, I believe that I can reasonably reply.
Mr. Bass's original statement was:
> An even stronger point is that the Sun OS is a much enhanced BSD port,
> and what you find in SVR4 is Sun OS code that was provided by Sun to
> USL. USL did the right thing in making sure that ANY file that contained
> anything possibly derived from BSD by SUN contain the BSD copyright.
>
> It's sad the UCB didn't extend this same recognition to USL/AT&T/BTL
> in the Net2 and 386BSD releases.
Note, Mr. Bass's statement is that ``ANY file that contained anything
possibly derived from BSD by SUN contain the BSD copyright.'' Mr. Bass
states in another news article that:
> My source knowledge largely stops at SVR3.2 ... I've had over two
> dozen people TELL me that Sun/BSD code is in SVR4 complete with UCB
> COPYRIGHT notices ... some of which I assumed to know what they were
> talking about.
Note, Mr. Bass refers to copyright notices. He does not mention
"attributions", or credit, only copyright notices.
I responded privately to Mr. Bass that Berkeley copyrights were not
preserved in S5R4. Mr. Bass posted my email to various newsgroups,
and then there were a few articles discussing how S5R4 source code
credited Berkeley. I do not dispute that Berkeley is credited, albeit
incorrectly, in the source code, but that has no relevance to Mr.
Bass's statements or my response.
The following examples are from the source code file netinet/ip_input.c
and the System V Application Binary Interface.
1: In 1988, a member of the CSRG created version 7.9 of the file
netinet/ip_input.c. One of his changes was to add this comment:
/*
* If offset or IP_MF are set, must reassemble.
* Otherwise, nothing need be done.
* (We could look in the reassembly queue to see
* if the packet was previously fragmented,
* but it's not worth the time; just let them time out.)
*/
2: The copyright notice from version 7.9 of the ip_input.c file
reads as follows:
/*
* Copyright (c) 1982, 1986 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved.
*
* Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted
* provided that this notice is preserved and that due credit is given
* to the University of California at Berkeley. The name of the University
* may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
* software without specific prior written permission. This software
* is provided ``as is'' without express or implied warranty.
*
* @(#)ip_input.c 7.9 (Berkeley) 3/15/88
*/
Note, redistribution is permitted ONLY IF the copyright notice is
preserved and due credit is given to the University of California.
No version of the ip_input.c file (containing the above comment and
its associated source code) was ever available without a copyright
notice having conditions similar to this one.
3: System V Release 4 code contains the comment and its associated
source code in the file netinet/ip_input.c. The "attribution" in
the ip_input.c file states (incorrectly) that the code is derived
from 4.3BSD. It does not preserve the University notice, nor does
it include a University copyright notice in any form.
I know of no justification for the removal of a copyright notice
or its replacement by another statement.
4: A second example is the System V Application Binary Interface. In
the Intel i860 Processor Supplement there is a complete copy of the
UCB Fast File System superblock structure. So far as I can tell,
there is no mention of any kind of the University anywhere in the
Supplement, although it contains many data structures and constants
created by the University of California and its contributors.
These examples are not isolated instances.
Mr. Bass, I stand by my statement. University copyright notices are
not preserved in S5R4 source code. Additionally, the due credit
required of vendors selling the University's source code is not present
in any version of the System V documentation that I've seen.
Keith Bostic
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.unomaha.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Subject: Re: BSDI and W. Jolitz (in cahoots?)
Message-ID: <1993Feb8.021040.15086@igor.tamri.com>
Organization: DMS Design
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com> <51782@shamash.cdc.com>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 02:10:40 GMT
Lines: 43
In article <51...@shamash.cdc.com> p...@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas) writes:
>In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com>, jb...@igor.tamri.com
>(John Bass) writes:
>|> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
>|> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
...
>WRT point #13. When 386BSD was first released by W. Jolitz in the spring of
>1992, it was followed quickly by a rather strange open-letter from W. Jolitz
>to the usenet community at large (at least *I* found it strange).
>
>The driving force behind that letter was that W. Jolitz was upset with the
>members of CSRG. He had felt betrayed by them and disagreed with what they
>were doing. 386BSD was a result of his feelings regarding CSRG. He finished
>the remaining work himself and released it to the public, as he felt it
>should be.
>
>Based on the tone of that letter, I would *highly* doubt that W. Jolitz would
>willingly have anything to do with BSDI. Of course, arguments could be made
>that W. Jolitz was deceiving everyone with that letter, but IMHO he was
>very sincere and speaking his mind.
I have received a number of conflicting statements regarding this whole issue.
First of all Bill's copyrights extend back to 1989, which parallels other
CSRG work. I understand he at first had a great deal of support from CSRG and
UCB (was an employee for part/all the early work) in his attempt to re-write
the remaining NON-AT&T clean code, then continued the same working for BSDI.
Then there was a major falling out -- some claim he left/was fired from BSDI
for various reasons. In any case the resulting friction caused him to make
several strong public statements regarding players in the CSRG/BSDI venture.
In addition, it seems he felt that CSRG folks were passing his continued work
to BSDI.
Although he was upset over the ordeal, he continued to get support from
various UCB/CSRG sources ... including using agate.berkeley.edu as the
main archive site for 386BSD. It was indicated to me that Bill got more
indirect help than would have been otherwise expected, simply to help provide
a liability decoy for BSDI's product (which was based on the same early code).
Anybody closer to the source? please clearify!!!
John Bass
DMS Design
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!news.mtholyoke.edu!news.unomaha.edu!sol.ctr.columbia.edu!
spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Message-ID: <1993Feb8.030658.16110@igor.tamri.com>
Organization: DMS Design
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
<1993Feb6.040553.25378@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 93 03:06:58 GMT
Lines: 134
In article <1993Feb6.040553.25...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> te...@cs.weber.edu
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>I have removed the comp.unix.bsd from the Newsgroups line; hopefully this
>will resolve the problems some people have been having with the crossposting.
>
>
>In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
>writes:
>
>> 2) That Bill Jolitz (also CSRG staff) had also done major work for BSDI.
>
>This is true if one counts the work done at CSRG by Bill Jolitz following
>the Net/2 release; my information indicates that this work may form a part
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>of BSD/386, but that this code was not used for 386BSD, which was built
>using the Net/2 release as a base. Whether some of the code Mr. Jolitz did
>while at CSRG was later used for BSDI, or the BSDI code was developed
>independently and entirely from the Net/2 sources as well is contended by
>both parties, and now USL.
>
>> 9) There is CSRG funded work, post Net-2, common to both Jolitz & BSDI.
>
>I haven't heard this rumor. Either it isn't a rumor, or it isn't credible,
>unless you are trying to start one. Either way, rumors aren't evidence of
>anything other than a possible justification of "meme" theory.
Well you seem to know of the presence of the work as indicated in your
response to 2 above ... and that it may have found it's way into BSD/386 ...
which independently confirms part of my other sources statements. I guess
it would be fair to assume that if he did the work for CSRG then he might
consider it fair game to use in 386BSD. So the rumor is not without merit.
>
>> C) My Logic
>>
>> 10) This case is not about UCB, it's about CSRG staff involved in a
>> for-profit business (BSDI), using UCB for legal cover where they
>> have no personal liability for their actions.
>
>Fie! The initial suit was against BSDI alone! Certainly the principals at
>BSDI have personal liability!
Not if the BSD/386 developed code is completely clean ... and they defer
infringment on the Net-2 and post-Net-2 code back to CSRG. In that case
as BSDI principals they have no liability ... and as UCB/CSRG staff they have
no liability.
Show me their liability other than dismissal from CSRG ... and most/all have
already left CSRG.
>
>> 11) The involved CSRG staff, (including Jolitz and common BSDI staff),
>> using the three products (Net-2, 386BSD, and BSD/386) acted out
>> a single goal, done with malice and forthought, of striping AT&T
>> of it's right to the UNIX operating system.
>
>This would be rather impossible to prove, even if it were not for the fact
>of the political problems between Mr. Jolitz and CSRG and BSDI. I can't
>believe this with some past postings on thier differences that they
>acted in concert.
It is not necessary for Jolitz to go along with BSDI ... simply that he was
party to and part of the effort to remove/rewrite the remaining AT&T code,
and that (at somepoint for what ever personal reasons on Bill's part) they
ended up with two versions derived from the same UCB work.
>> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
>> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
>
>Hardly. The principals involved in 386BSD are not on wonderful terms
>with BSDI for the most part, especially with respect to how the future
>direction of the Berkeley code legacy will be managed (commercial vs.
>non-commercial). Robert Withrow can back me up here 8-).
You are only looking at it from Bill's point of view ... certainly Bill
is not supporting BSDI at this point. But surely, 386BSD takes a lot
of heat off possible damages for BSDI since Bill's code has a broader
base. The assertion is that CSRG/BSDI staff (or their supporters at UCB)
directly or indirectly helped Jolitz knowing 386BSD would also help
protect them from damages - it doesn't matter if Bill approved or not.
>>With this logic, I do not separate any of the players, since I belive
>>they acted as a group ... certainly BSDI and CSRG are tightly interconnected,
>>and the Jolitz and CSRG and BSDI connections appear tightly interconnected
>>as well. Using the same logic, ditto for the three products.
>
>You don't know what you are talking about here. I think both BSDI and
>the Jolitz's would object to this (as do I, and as, apparently, does
>USL, since it hasn't filed against 386BSD).
Poor argument ... to name 386BSD/Jolitz for what reason in the first round???
take more public heat? He can't afford legal fees to defend himself, and
there is no for-profit motive from which to extract damages. If BSDI goes
down based on Net-2 ... then so does 386BSD. In any case, Bill's work
is tainted as well ... take the saio.h for example.
You admit in your rebuttal to 2 above that Jolitz was part of the group
re-write effort - the fact they parted ways is a non-issue. So just what
is it that you deny?
>>UCB management and legal staff (read California tax payers) are stuck
>>defending the CSRG staff and their little company BSDI ... personally I
>>think their budget would be better spent educating UCB students.
>
>This wouldn't be the case if only the original action were pending and
>the suit had not been expanded. USL felt they had to do this to protect
>their property/trade secrets. There is also both the legal precedent of
>"deep pockets" and "go after everyone and let the judge sort them out",
>both making sound business sense given the was the courts work.
AT&T had no choice ... given BSDI's claim they did not originate the
infringing code and had no reason to believe it was tainted since it was
in public view.
Because they (the CSRG staff at BSDI) were in part responsible for releasing
the tainted code, BSDI forced UCB into the suit by this action. AT&T did so
in a very limited way ... by not seeking damages from UCB ... just BSDI where
they have access to the pricipals assets should BSDI's code also show
infringment. If BSDI comes up clean, then they just roll over and play dead
should the parts of Net-2 be declared tainted ... or re-write them too.
You have to admit a possible conflict of interest in their capacity as CSRG
staff ... then jumping straight into BSDI doing the same work.
It still has not been clearified WHO directed the UNIX re-write effort at CSRG
and with who's approval's and what funding source - for both the Net-2 effort
and the post Net-2 effort. This is a major question to resolve, along with
dates -- to prove or disprove the conspiriacy theory. It is particulary
important to prove that the group did not act on their own in conflict of
interest with their BSDI plans.
Anyone close enough to have first hand knowledge? or additional facts to
point the inquiry in one direction or another?
John Bass
DMS Design
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sparky!uunet!amdahl!amdcad!ames!ncar!csn!boulder.parcplace.com!imp
From: i...@boulder.parcplace.com (Warner Losh)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Message-ID: <C25nrG.I65@boulder.parcplace.com>
Sender: n...@boulder.parcplace.com
Organization: ParcPlace Boulder
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Feb 1993 00:23:40 GMT
Lines: 14
In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com
(John Bass) writes:
> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
Based on things said publicly in various newsgroups, this is
completely bogus. Jolitz released 386BSD in frustration after a big,
nasty public fight with BSDI. It certainly isn't a damage shield or a
marketing tool for BSDI.
Warner
--
Warner Losh i...@boulder.parcplace.COM ParcPlace Boulder
I've almost finished my brute force solution to subtlety.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!howland.reston.ans.net!
sol.ctr.columbia.edu!news.columbia.edu!news.media.mit.edu!mintaka.lcs.mit.edu!
mintaka!jtw
From: j...@lcs.mit.edu (John Wroclawski)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
In-Reply-To: imp@boulder.parcplace.com's message of 9 Feb 93 00:23:40 GMT
Message-ID: <JTW.93Feb9202424@pmws.lcs.mit.edu>
Sender: n...@mintaka.lcs.mit.edu
Organization: MIT Home for Wayward Triumphs
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com> <C25nrG.I65@boulder.parcplace.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 1993 01:24:24 GMT
Lines: 44
In article <C25nrG....@boulder.parcplace.com> i...@boulder.parcplace.com
(Warner Losh) writes:
In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com
(John Bass) writes:
> 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
> damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
Based on things said publicly in various newsgroups, this is
completely bogus. Jolitz released 386BSD in frustration after a big,
nasty public fight with BSDI. It certainly isn't a damage shield or a
marketing tool for BSDI.
You know, I'm going to regret this.
The release of 386BSD to the general public could well serve as a
shield for BSDI (and for that matter UCB), if, as John Bass claims,
386BSD contains things which USL considers trade secrets -
particularly if these things were not contained in the Net2 code.
Disclosure of trade secret information to the general public through
an unrelated path explicitly frees holders of that information under
non-disclosure from further responsibility. This is both the law and a
term of the AT&T unix license of that era.
If 386BSD is found to be available and distributed to the general
public, and the Jolitz effort is not related to BSDI, the trade
secrets are cooked, and BSDI is not liable.
In my non-legal opinion, 386BSD is more likely than Net2 to meet the
test of availability to the general public, because 386BSD has been
actually distributed much more widely (because it really does something).
Conspiracy theorists among us, of which I am not one, might well argue
that the _only_ way to blow the USL trade secret protection claims was
to get someone to create a working, useful system, throw it open to
the world, and hope that a zillion people picked it up. This has
happened with 386BSD; it had not happened with Net2.
-john
John Wroclawski
j...@lcs.mit.edu
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!newsgate.watson.ibm.com!news.ans.net!malgudi.oar.net!
zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!
cs.weber.edu!terry
From: te...@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Message-ID: <1993Feb10.053832.20954@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: n...@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com> <C25nrG.I65@boulder.parcplace.com>
<JTW.93Feb9202424@pmws.lcs.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 10 Feb 93 05:38:32 GMT
Lines: 54
In article <JTW.93Feb9202...@pmws.lcs.mit.edu> j...@lcs.mit.edu (John Wroclawski)
writes:
>
>In article <C25nrG....@boulder.parcplace.com> i...@boulder.parcplace.com
>(Warner Losh) writes:
>
> In article <1993Feb5.105510.9...@igor.tamri.com> jb...@igor.tamri.com
> (John Bass) writes:
> > 13) The release of 386BSD into the public was done to provide a
> > damage shield, as well as provide a marketing tool, for BSDI.
>
> Based on things said publicly in various newsgroups, this is
> completely bogus. Jolitz released 386BSD in frustration after a big,
> nasty public fight with BSDI. It certainly isn't a damage shield or a
> marketing tool for BSDI.
>
>You know, I'm going to regret this.
>
>The release of 386BSD to the general public could well serve as a
>shield for BSDI (and for that matter UCB), if, as John Bass claims,
>386BSD contains things which USL considers trade secrets -
>particularly if these things were not contained in the Net2 code.
>
>Disclosure of trade secret information to the general public through
>an unrelated path explicitly frees holders of that information under
>non-disclosure from further responsibility. This is both the law and a
>term of the AT&T unix license of that era.
>
>If 386BSD is found to be available and distributed to the general
>public, and the Jolitz effort is not related to BSDI, the trade
>secrets are cooked, and BSDI is not liable.
>
>In my non-legal opinion, 386BSD is more likely than Net2 to meet the
>test of availability to the general public, because 386BSD has been
>actually distributed much more widely (because it really does something).
That 386BSD would act in this fashion is possible given the circumstances
you outlined; however, it was Mr. Bass' contention that this was the intent
of the realese of 386BSD, something clearly requiring collusion between
BSDI and Mr. Jolitz, a possiblity which I believe has been put to rest.
If the conspiricy were true, then USL hasn't got a chance, since BSDI
is thinking at least 12-13 moves ahead of them (something which I do not
believe is likely or even possible).
Terry Lambert
te...@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sparky!uunet!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!igor!jbass
From: jb...@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Subject: Re: BSDI and W. Jolitz (in cahoots?)
Message-ID: <1993Feb11.200031.24853@igor.tamri.com>
Organization: DMS Design
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com> <51782@shamash.cdc.com>
<VIXIE.93Feb8105335@cognition.pa.dec.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Feb 93 20:00:31 GMT
Lines: 87
In article <VIXIE.93Feb8105...@cognition.pa.dec.com> vi...@pa.dec.com
(Paul A Vixie) writes:
>>BTW, that letter was posted to comp.unix.bsd very early on (it's article # was
>>less than 100). Is there an archive somewhere where I can look it up? I'd
>>really rather that everyone examine it for themselves, instead of me posting
>>stuff from memory.
>
> 386BSD Release 0.0
> The Road Not Taken
>
> William F. Jolitz
>
...
> What we've since learned from this experience, to our
>sorrow, is that once anyone starts down the track to
>providing a broadly accessible system, aberrations, such as
>delusions of profit and glory, cannot be allowed to blur the
>goal. This rule holds no matter how well-meaning the motiva-
>tions of other people appear.
...
> I began to notice that the original point in doing this
>work had become lost, and that things were getting wildly
>out of control. An insatiable desire for power and wealth
>had begun to distort the entire BSD research project, and I
>felt I had to put the value of 386BSD back into perspective.
>I spent many months trying to resolve my growing differences
>with CSRG in an appropriate and quiet fashion. After all,
>they were my friends.
...
> I realized that my family would suffer personally by
>this stance. It was not easy to hear my little daughter say
>"Daddy, I liked Mike and Keith and Kirk. Why don't they like
>us anymore?" It was not easy to see long-time friends at
>USENIX catch a glimpse of me, turn, and run in the opposite
>direction for fear of being seen talking to me. It was not
>easy to find my University associates putting my new pro-
>jects "on hold", even though they told me that they really
>didn't believe any of those nasty rumors circulating about
>my character or work on 386BSD. It has been quite a strain
>these last months enduring these indignities in silence and
>focussing on completing my goals.
...
> And now, since CSRG has stated in writing that the
>386BSD project will not be continued at Berkeley (not
>surprising, given I was the only one who maintained the
>machines and the 386BSD code), I have no choice but to go-
>it-alone and get this system out-the-door to the tens-of-
>thousands of people who need an experimental research and
>educational system. Otherwise, they would continue to be
>denied access by CSRG to either a licensed or unencumbered
>version of 386BSD from UCB, and instead be forced to pay for
>a version of my work from a firm in which they have a
>private interest. I have been fortunate in finding many
>others who believe in the goals of 386BSD, and who are now
>spending a great deal of time and effort getting it out to
>everyone who desires a copy.
>
>--
>Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab
Thanks very much Paul for finding the source ... a number of
people had related various parts of this story to me ... it's
nice to finally get more of the picture from one of the sources.
First my apology to the Jolitz's for considering them part of
the CSRG/BSDI effort. It's clear Bill's moral view of their
conflict of interest is the same as mine and many others. We
may still differ as to whether or not Net/2 or 386BSD is free
of infingement ... but clearly his morals were in place.
I still take the stand that the original wrong was using
goverment funds to target the product of a company. The fact
the company had provided support to UCB (and many other
research institutions) with a very cheap license for this
product (UNIX) makes it more difficult to swallow. For the
resulting re-write effort to appear as much intact as it
does just makes it more difficult to accept.
John Bass
DMS Design
Path: sparky!uunet!stanford.edu!agate!soda.berkeley.edu!gwh
From: g...@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 6 (The question of motive)
Date: 12 Feb 1993 07:36:39 GMT
Organization: Dis-
Lines: 47
Sender: g...@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Message-ID: <1lfk27$lp6@agate.berkeley.edu>
References: <C25nrG.I65@boulder.parcplace.com> <JTW.93Feb9202424@pmws.lcs.mit.edu>
<1993Feb10.053832.20954@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
NNTP-Posting-Host: soda.berkeley.edu
Summary: Can we take my name out of this, please?
In article <1993Feb10.053832.20...@fcom.cc.utah.edu> te...@cs.weber.edu
(A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>[...]
>If the conspiricy were true, then USL hasn't got a chance, since BSDI
>is thinking at least 12-13 moves ahead of them (something which I do not
>believe is likely or even possible).
I'm going to second this... decending into layered conspiracies is
standard alt.* procedure, but lacks legal basis (or basis in reality)
most of the time 8-)
I also would like to formally request that this thread change Subject:'s
at this point. In my opinion, less than 10% of what's been posted
as being replies to "George William Herbert's Challenge" was even
tangentally related to my actual challenge, and I'm a bit tired
of being blamed (at least in Subject: ...) for it... 8-) The list
of files that was posted is just about all I really cared about.
Having seen that list, and observed that source, my earlier
opinion remains unchanged. I don't believe that that list makes
a credible case when examined in detail.
I have only two more comments for general consumption. Apparently
the Bell Labs crew, and their attorneys, tried to tell USL that the
suit was a bad idea and would fail, and USL told them to stuff it.
When core Bell Labs people say that USL's claims won't hold
water, I listen. When they say that the lawsuit is bad policy,
I listen carefully.
Also, my impression of USL is that after it was spun off of AT&T
its corporate memory lost touch of the origional UNIX reality
that it decended from. I am guessing that USL really doesn't know
where it's coming from all that well when dealing with events that
occurred before its founding.
Barring further evidence, I'm going to shut up now. I've seen enough
real evidence that random opinions won't make a difference anymore,
and these threads are not going anywhere constructive. If anyone
actually learns something new of note, I may jump back in.
-george william herbert
g...@lurnix.com
g...@soda.berkeley.edu
[Disclaimer: I'm an alumni; I'm not speaking for the University,
the CSRG, my company, or anyone else of note besides myself.
And hopefully I never will have to be an official spokesman,
so there 8-) ]
Path: sparky!uunet!pipex!doc.ic.ac.uk!decwrl!deccrl!news.crl.dec.com!
pa.dec.com!vixie
From: vi...@pa.dec.com (Paul A Vixie)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: BSDI and W. Jolitz (in cahoots?)
Date: 15 Feb 93 23:24:56
Organization: DEC Network Systems Lab
Lines: 50
Message-ID: <VIXIE.93Feb15232456@cognition.pa.dec.com>
References: <1993Feb5.105510.9628@igor.tamri.com> <51782@shamash.cdc.com>
<VIXIE.93Feb8105335@cognition.pa.dec.com>
<1993Feb11.200031.24853@igor.tamri.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: cognition.pa.dec.com
In-reply-to: jbass@igor.tamri.com's message of Thu, 11 Feb 93 20:00:31 GMT
[John Bass]
> Thanks very much Paul for finding the source ... a number of people had
> related various parts of this story to me ... it's nice to finally get more
> of the picture from one of the sources.
>
> First my apology to the Jolitz's for considering them part of the CSRG/BSDI
> effort. It's clear Bill's moral view of their conflict of interest is the
> same as mine and many others. We may still differ as to whether or not
> Net/2 or 386BSD is free of infingement ... but clearly his morals were in
> place.
>
> I still take the stand that the original wrong was using goverment funds to
> target the product of a company. The fact the company had provided support
> to UCB (and many other research institutions) with a very cheap license for
> this product (UNIX) makes it more difficult to swallow. For the resulting
> re-write effort to appear as much intact as it does just makes it more
> difficult to accept.
I think it's been clear to everyone, from before 386BSD 0.0 was released,
that Bill Jolitz was not "in cahoots" with BSDI. Bill was a BSDI employee
briefly, but the "Road Not Taken" article that you quoted makes it clear
that Bill and BSDI are not travelling together at this point. I hear your
apology but it remains to be seen whether Lynne and Bill will accept it --
your accusation was ignorant and caused unneccessary pain. I can't comment
on your "morals" or on Bill's, but since Bill seems to believe that Net-2
is free of AT&T code and you do not, I'm not sure that you will really think
that his "morals" were "in place" once you notice the disparity.
John, you are an honest fool. Your articles on usenet have been wildly wrong
and have generated a great deal of heat and no light at all. That you could
have argued all this time and accused Bill and others of wrongdoing without
having even read the original articles by the original parties is nothing
short of astounding to me. You have NO IDEA who these people are, what they
have done, why they have done it, or what they hope to do now. You don't
know BSD or the history of BSD or the culture of BSD. All of us would be
much better off if you pulled Net-2 over to your machine, printed it out,
and read it from start to finish (especially the comments), and then read
"The Design of the 4BSD Operating System" (sic), and then read the Bach book,
and then read the Lyons book, and then petitioned me for my archive of the
discussions on comp.unix.bsd and comp.bugs.bsd, and then sat and thought for
five years, and THEN opened your mouth again to issue opinions about what
other people are doing.
Until then you are nothing but an honest fool. You are causing unneccessary
pain. Please stop.
--
Paul Vixie, DEC Network Systems Lab
Palo Alto, California, USA "Don't be a rebel, or a conformist;
<vi...@pa.dec.com> decwrl!vixie they're the same thing, anyway. Find
<p...@vix.com> vixie!paul your own path, and stay on it." -me