HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Quotes from Berkeley; also Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 26 Aug 92 14:39:18 GMT
Reply-To: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.112.15

I picked up a copy of the ``Daily Californian'', the UC Berkeley
campus paper, on Tuesday.  There is a front page article with the
following headline:

	AT&T, university face off over Unix

	Software co. sues UC Berkeley for infringing copyright

	By Matt Ziol, Staff Writer

The article gives a general overview of the USL lawsuit, the connection
between USL and AT&T, and some responses.  I am not going to reproduce
the entire article, but here is an essential quote:

    ``We don't believe we have violated any contractual agreements
    with AT&T,'' said Mary MacDonald, attorney for the university.
    ``We dispute that they even have a valid right to copyright Unix.''

(Any errors in this quote are due to the paper.  Having been misquoted
myself in printed news media, I would not swear that this is an
exact quote.  Heck, I would not even swear that anyone named MacDonald
exists.  I am pretty sure that UC Berkeley exists though. :-) )

Anyway, if you take this as an official statement from the university
---and a university lawyer is likely to be able to issue official
statements---this tells you that the university still believes that
net.2 does not require AT&T licensing.

In article <KANDALL.92Aug26182742@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>I believe Terry made the initial statement that UCB refused to sign
>the restrictive version of the license, and signed a less restrictive
>version.  Does someone know for sure what was signed?  Fact or factoid?

I cannot speak for UC Berkeley, but when I was at the University of
Maryland, we had similar situations in which one group could or would
not sign some license, yet some other group could and did.  If this has
occurred at UCB, it is entirely possible that various people in the UC
system signed a System V source license *and* that no members of CSRG
have ever had access to System V source.  State universities are big
places, and it is misleading to think of them as unified wholes.
-- 
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 510 486 5427)
Berkeley, CA		Domain:	torek@ee.lbl.gov
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Organization: The World
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21.17.13.1992.1004@athos.rutgers.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug26173417@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug27115836@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug29201720@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug31181944@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 23:53:49 GMT


From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
>	1) AT&T was prevented from commercial activities in 
>		the computer biz at the time the licenses were
>		signed.  (Cannot develop greenbelt).
>	2) This condition has since changed.  (Now it can.)
>	3) Since AT&T is allowed to participate in computer
>		business activities, UCB should no longer
>		be under its restrictions for how it uses
>		its educational UNIX licenses.
>		
>That is, UCB should be able to use its current educational license
>"for profit".

These are conclusions you drew, not my points which were much more
carefully considered.

The point is, if you need it in a soundbite, the change in conditions
under which the contract was originally agreed to are sufficient that
there should be plenty of room for negotiation to salvage its intent.

These issues are never black and white as you seem to like to paint
them, but common business sense dictates that many of the original
provisions of the contract have changed in their intent and purpose
since the contract was agreed to over a decade ago. It would be in
both parties' interest to re-open those points retroactively, the
leverage being having the entire contract thrown out due to
intransigence.

A contract is only good so long as it reasonably serves both parties.


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: 386BSD
Organization: The World
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 00:13:40 GMT


>How does this lawsuit affect the "Jolitz" 386BSD?  Is the free 386BSD
>encumbered in anyway due to these actions?

This is hardly even debateable: AT&T/USL's suit would cover the Jolitz
BSD since it's heavily derived from the Net/2 release in question in
the suit.

Hence, if AT&T/USL succeeds you can kiss this software goodbye also,
enforcement aside but, for example, it will become illegal to own it
hence self-incriminating to discuss it (e.g. on the net.)


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: basics of NET/2 and suit?
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 1992 12:31:17 GMT

In article <1992Aug25.194204.29276@news.nd.edu> root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math) writes:
>In article <1992Aug25.122619.27980@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mark@cbfsa.att.com (Mark Horton) writes:
>>What exactly is in the BSDI product that's in question?
>>Is it all of 4BSD?  Just the TCP/IP code?  What is the
>>claimed history of this code?

>Hey, if the Net runs out of IP addresses, and we all have to use something
>else, won't the TCP/IP code be a less than useful thing if the new Net
>doesn't use something that's derived from TCP/IP.

As I understand it the New Net is going to be TCP/CLNP. Pity... I'm pretty
unhappy with the lower layers of the ISO protocols. We use them at work,
and apart from the larger address space I can't see any advantage over IP.
I'd much rather see "fat IP".

Some of the higher layers are nice. FTAM has FTP beat all hollow, for example.
Intel runs a better remote file service than NFS *over* FTAM!
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
From: ajv@xhost92.csd.mot.com
Date: 25 Aug 92 15:52:38 GMT

bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:

>Or is the question whether there is code in Net/2 which is
>"derivatory" from AT&T code. That is, not quite copied wholesale, but
>imitated to an extent that it violated the first party's ownership
>rights?

I'm amazed that nobody has identified the most basic issue of this
kind of thinking.  AT&T gave their code to a *university*.  This, if
memory serves, is where people go to be exposed to new ideas, to
learn techniques, and then to carry them forth to be used for the
rest of their lives.

So now AT&T is suing because people learned from it, and used their
knowledge.  If they didn't want this to happen, I would strongly
expect that they shouldn't have given it to a university in the first
place!  Since they have, hopefully the courts will not decide against
a university acting in its most basic capacity.

				Just my opinions...
				Andy Valencia
				ajv@csd.mot.com
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier)
Subject: Re: basics of NET/2 and suit?
Organization: Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH (USA)
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 92 00:45:46 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.004246.23899@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) writes:
>You're way out in left field here.  TCP/IP is NOT proprietary.  It wasn't
>developed by anyone remotely related to AT&T or USL, and USL hasn't claimed
>any infringement by the Net/1 release which also included the TCP code.

I don't think I was clear enough here.  There's a lot more to TCP than BSD.
TCP/IP is a protocol standard -- there's more than one implementation of it,
and one of those implementations just happens to be in BSD Unix.

-- 
Stephen Trier                      "I am not a lawyer, though I play one
Network Services Engineering        on the net."
CWRU IRIS/INS/Telecom                  Chris Torek, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov
trier@ins.cwru.edu
From: tg@cs.toronto.edu (Tom Glinos)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
Date: 25 Aug 92 23:07:57 GMT
Organization: Department of Computer Science, University of Toronto

In article <KANDALL.92Aug25180650@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>Since BSDI is not really a revenue threat, why worry?
>

Oh really? Imagine every vendor in the world  suddenly declared
that their "UNIX" kernels were not derived from AT&T code.

A loss of revenue from SCO would hurt USL pretty hard. That's why they should worry.
-- 
=================
No regrets, ever!			| Tom Glinos @ U of Toronto Statistics
For down that path, lies madness	| tg@utstat.toronto.edu
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Reply-To: jpk@Ingres.COM (Jon Krueger)
Organization: Ingres Division, ASK Computer Systems.
Date: 2 Sep 92 00:14:32 GMT

Michael Kandall asks:
> If USL checked the NET/2 code for copyright, issued a clean
> bill-of-health, dropped the suit and any claims to
> "methods and concepts" which are well-known, allowed distribution of
> the NET/2 code and its derivatives, promised not to hound people who
> had knowledge of the UNIX System and limit their future employment
> possibilities, what would USL get in return?

The future.

Their attempts to salvage the past have been pitiful and by all
accounts far from profitable.

The future, as Bell Labs proves, belongs to innovation.
If USL pointed itself at this goal it might in time have
a product people want to buy.

Also: a clean conscience, a corporate reputation, a basis for
cooperation with academic and research functions, a reason for
anyone even to look at Plan 9, better recruiting and retaining
top talent, return of lost phone business, and a large chunk
of cash not spent on lawyers.

-- Jon
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: 386BSD
Organization: The World
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 1 Sep 1992 04:07:22 GMT


I wrote...

>>How does this lawsuit affect the "Jolitz" 386BSD?  Is the free 386BSD
>>encumbered in anyway due to these actions?
>
>This is hardly even debateable: AT&T/USL's suit would cover the Jolitz
>BSD since it's heavily derived from the Net/2 release in question in
>the suit.
>
>Hence, if AT&T/USL succeeds you can kiss this software goodbye also,
>enforcement aside but, for example, it will become illegal to own it
>hence self-incriminating to discuss it (e.g. on the net.)

Someone pointed out to me in private e-mail that it is conceivable
that USL could, having won this court case, sell this product under
source or binary license.

I suppose for completeness' sake that is possible, although I find it
highly, highly unlikely (i.e. why muddy the waters for their SVR4
product?)

And I doubt, given the typical $100+K source license fees, that was
the motivation for this question.

But there you have it.

Note that there is no reason to believe that any current source
license would cover Net/2 based sources, should AT&T/USL succeed.

They could easily put it under a separate license (as they do several
versions of Unix currently, each requiring a separate fee), and in
fact one would guess reasonably that this is what they would do, and
then not offer the license. As I said, why create another support
situation and competition for their own SVR4 product?


--
        -Barry Shein

Software Tool & Die    | bzs@world.std.com          | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202        | Login: 617-739-WRLD
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
Date: 26 Aug 92 22:17:53 GMT
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21.58.03.1992.1295@athos.rutgers.edu>
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan

>>>>> On 26 Aug 92 01:58:04 GMT, hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick) said:

Charles> The problem with this argument is that one of the explicit goals of an
Charles> educational license was to encourage the educational licensees to
Charles> develop software, including modifications of the system itself, for
Charles> public distribution.  

Distribution *only* to other licensees (when the developed software
contains parts of the original source code [or "concepts and methods",
whatever those may be]).  Explicitly stated so, and until NET/2, the
actual state of affairs.  Only to licensees, and only those licensees
with a version as, or more, recent than the one used as the basis for
the derived works.

I *do* see inconsistencies in the intent of the license, but not
the ones you are pointing out.

Charles> Thus "educational purposes" was interpreted as
Charles> including public software development.  What would definitely be
Charles> inappropriate would be developing code limited to BSDI.  But the
Charles> license provides a very clear test for whether efforts are for profit:
Charles> is the code available to everyone without any restriction on
Charles> redistribution.

You are confusing the availability of results of research/the criteria
for consideration as an "educational institution" with availability of
derived software.  In the case where these two are the same, they are
not freely distributable.  Taking your reasoning to the extreme would
mean that the entire licensed system would be redistributable.

One thing to remember is that an educational license can be used to
defray royalty payments.  Since, under an educational license, the
software (source and binary) is usable on an unlimited number of
machines, some vendors provide (or at least used to) a further
discount to universities when selling a machine, since the vendor's
royalty for the OS software could be covered under the university's
license (assuming the university has at least as recent a release as
the vendor is providing).

A university would not qualify as an educational institution, if, for
example, it planned to use its UNIX license to run machines whose
research results were available only to, say, the US military in
return for grant money.  Such universities would need to have
commercial licenses, if they needed access to source code for those
projects.


Mike
----
From: pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com (Paul Dokas)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Date: 3 Sep 92 13:45:27 GMT
Organization: ICEM Systems, Inc.

In article <BZS.92Sep2194155@ussr.std.com>, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
|> For example, what would you stake on whether or not there exists
|> another contract (in the entire AT&T telecommunications domain) that
|> was invalidated by the deregulation? For example, can you spell
|> FTS2000? And isn't UCB a state (govt) school? Hmm, maybe not directly
|> relevant, but an interesting parallel to work from (and if you don't
|> know what FTS2000 is boy oh boy are you out of your league with
|> opinions.)

OK, I'll show my ignorance :-).  What is the FTS2000 opinion?  From what
you have stated here it sounds relevant to the the BSDI,UCB vs USL suit.
-- 
#include <std.disclaimer>
#define FULL_NAME               "Paul Dokas"
#define EMAIL_PRIMARY           "pbd@runyon.cim.cdc.com"
#define EMAIL_SECONDARY         "pbd@power1.cim.cdc.com"
/*** "modern" humans are the embodiment of koyaanisqatsi ***/
From: mjb@doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew J Brown)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: basics of NET/2 and suit?
Date: 30 Aug 92 14:41:00 GMT
	<1992Aug26.004246.23899@usenet.ins.cwru.edu>
	<1992Aug29.020201.17375@pegasus.com>
Organization: Department Of Computing, Imperial College, London.
NNTP-Posting-Host: oak5.doc.ic.ac.uk
In-reply-to: richard@pegasus.com's message of 29 Aug 92 02:02:01 GMT

In article <1992Aug29.020201.17375@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes:
>In article <1992Aug26.004246.23899@usenet.ins.cwru.edu> trier@slc6.ins.cwru.edu (Stephen C. Trier) writes:
>> [...]
>>
>>USL has not been specific.  They claim that some part of the Net/2 release
>>is derived from their copyrighted and trade-secret-protected works.  They
>>also claim that BSDI somehow added some USL-proprietary code to BSDI *after*
>>the Net/2 release.
>
>Could you please quote the portion of the document that states this?
>I don't remember seeing any such claims.

Quoted from USL's 24th July amended complaint:
             41.  BSDI's BSD/386 Source product is admittedly
   derived from the Networking Release 2 software.  As such, the
   BSD/386 Source product is based upon, substantially copied from
   or derived from UNIX(R) system software or derivative works
   therefrom.  Wholly apart from its reliance on the Networking
   Release 2 software, BSDI has added to its BSD/386 Source product
   source code that is based upon, substantially copied from or
   derived from UNIX(R) system software or derivative works
   therefrom.

-Matt
--
| Matthew J. Brown  | Dept. of Computing | If God intended for us to go to   |
| mjb@doc.ic.ac.uk  | Imperial College,  | lectures He wouldn't have created |
| mjb02@cc.ic.ac.uk | 180 Queen's Gate   | double-sided photocopiers.        |
| Morven on Lambda  | LONDON SW7 2AZ     |          -IC RagMag 1991/92       |
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: carey@brahma2.b23b.ingr.com (Carey E. Cilyok)
Subject: 386BSD
Organization: Just Me.
Distribution: alt
Date: Mon, 31 Aug 1992 19:45:33 GMT

Sorry if this has been covered already and I missed it but...

How does this lawsuit affect the "Jolitz" 386BSD?  Is the free 386BSD
encumbered in anyway due to these actions?

Thanks,

Carey
--

   _____ Carey E. Cilyok               | A well-educated electorate, being
  /\    \ DAZIX, An Intergraph Company | necessary to the security of a free
 /  \    \ One Madison Industrial Park | state, the right of the people to
/    \____\ Huntsville, AL 35807-4201  | keep and read books, shall not be
\    /    / (205)730-8545, MS: LR23B3  | infringed. -- Sound familiar?
 \  /    / carey@brahma2.b23b.ingr.com |------------------------------------- 
  \/____/ ccilyok@b23b.ingr.com        | ** My opinions, not Intergraph's. **
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Subject: Re: Monopolistic Practices
Organization: Taronga Park BBS
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 01:10:14 GMT

In article <1992Aug26.104810.13029@wimsey.bc.ca> jhenders@wimsey.bc.ca (John Henders) writes:
>    Couldn't a case be made that USL, or ATT originally, used the
>educational licencing to guarantee there could never be a "clean
>room" U*ix? How many CS students could go through their entire 
>time in school and never see U*ix source code? 

This is a variant of the long-running "Unix Conspiracy" theory. I'm surprised
nobody has brought this up yet (see TNHD for details).
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
From: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu (Charles Hedrick)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: We could blow up USL.
Date: 26 Aug 92 01:58:04 GMT
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.

kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:

>Independent of the actual merit of the case, what's bothering USL is
>(1) that UCB *signed* a license binding it "not [to] make any
>disclosure of the LICENSED SOFTWARE ... (including methods or concepts
>utilized therein) to anyone, except to employees or students", and the
>NET/2 source code is being widely distributed.  And (2), UCB *signed*
>a license assuring that the software will be used "solely for
>'academic, educational and administrative purposes", and via BSDI, it
>is being used as the basis of a for-profit business (Sections 35-38,
>55 of complaint #2 claim collusion).

The problem with this argument is that one of the explicit goals of an
educational license was to encourage the educational licensees to
develop software, including modifications of the system itself, for
public distribution.  Thus "educational purposes" was interpreted as
including public software development.  What would definitely be
inappropriate would be developing code limited to BSDI.  But the
license provides a very clear test for whether efforts are for profit:
is the code available to everyone without any restriction on
redistribution.

(Again, I'm speaking here of typical educational licenses.  Obviously
I don't know the specific license Berkeley signed.  But if it is an
educational license, I'd bet it has provisions like this.)
From: root@sanger.chem.nd.edu (Doctor Math)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: basics of NET/2 and suit?
Date: 25 Aug 92 19:42:04 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Notre Dame

In article <1992Aug25.122619.27980@cbfsb.cb.att.com> mark@cbfsa.att.com (Mark Horton) writes:
>What exactly is in the BSDI product that's in question?
>Is it all of 4BSD?  Just the TCP/IP code?  What is the
>claimed history of this code?

Hey, if the Net runs out of IP addresses, and we all have to use something
else, won't the TCP/IP code be a less than useful thing if the new Net
doesn't use something that's derived from TCP/IP.

>Does anyone have a list of the parts of the system that are included?

Yesh, the Lawyers. And they're not telling anyone.
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
Subject: Re: 32/V licensing
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan
	<1992Aug20.235637.21040@njitgw.njit.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Aug21141122@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<BZS.92Aug21192010@ussr.std.com>
	<KANDALL.92Aug24143319@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
	<Aug.25.21.17.13.1992.1004@athos.rutgers.edu>
	<BZS.92Aug26173417@ussr.std.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 1992 16:58:36 GMT

>>>>> On Wed, 26 Aug 1992 22:34:17 GMT, bzs@ussr.std.com (Barry Shein) said:

Barry> Suppose you bought a parcel of land, one among many, from a firm which
Barry> was enjoined not to develop any of the parcels. They therefore passed
Barry> that restriction to you as a covenant, you may not develop the land
Barry> either. That's ok, you accept the greenbelt splendor of it all behind
Barry> your house. That's the purpose of the restriction, to maintain natural
Barry> surroundings.  [rest of analogy deleted ...]

AT&T entered the computer business in 1984.  Well before that, there
were companies producing commercial, binary versions of UNIX mostly
based on Version 7.  The restrictions in the educational (vs.
commercial) varieties of the license do NOT stem from AT&T's former
business restrictions (otherwise there would be no pre-'84 commercial
market).  The fact that either license cost merely a song is.  Only
AT&T was restricted from making money, not other commercial
businesses.

Anyways, your analogy employing the law of propagating release from
responsibilities (B was released from its responsibilities to A, so
C must be released from its responsibilities to B!) does not hold.


Mike
----