HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: crussell@samson.hac.com (Chris Russell)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: RCS for VMS
Date: 16 Sep 92 01:00:09 GMT
Reply-To: crussell@samson.hac.com
Organization: Hughes Training Incorporated, WCO

Does anyone know of a port of RCS or SCCS for VAX VMS?  I'm not very happy
with CMS, especially the price ($3500 for a SINGLE USER configuration... now
tell me, what sense does it make having only a single user/account use CMS
in the first place???).

I looked into GNU RCS, but it appears to be Unix-bound.  (I'm not positive of
this yet, but it certainly doesn't say its VMS compatible anywhere.)

Your help is greatly appreciated.

Thank you.
Chris Russell.

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Weber State University  (Ogden, UT)
Distribution: inet
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:27:45 GMT

In article <BuJJ19.B17@gpu.utcs.utoronto.ca> glenn@scooptram.utcs.utoronto.ca (Glenn Mackintosh) writes:
>(it could be A.G. Bayer as you say in your article but it doesn't sound like
              ^^^^^^^^^^
>the name I don't remember :-).

"A. G. Bear" is a "talking" teddy bear.  When you talk to it, it "talks"
back -- basically, "mumbling" at the same amplitudes and timing that you
used with it.  My aunt has one.  8-).  8-).  Yes, it's trademarked.  They
sold a lot of them -- is that "common use"?  8-).


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@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
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:3008 comp.org.eff.talk:5794 comp.unix.bsd:5539 comp.os.mach:1249 misc.int-property:963 alt.suit.att-bsdi:289
From: sgr@alden.UUCP (Stan Ryckman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 11 Sep 92 15:42:08 GMT
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Alden Electronics, Westboro, MA

In article <18ns8rINNd81@agate.berkeley.edu> ag@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU (Keith Gabryelski) writes:
[...]
 >In article <farrow.@fido.Colorado.EDU> farrow@fido.Colorado.EDU writes:
[...]
 >>The hell it hasn't! AT&T/USL are several years too late. I was using
 >>UN*X for over a year before I even heard of AT&T System V. At CU
 >>Boulder, we don't even have any SysV machines that I know of, yet we
 >>refer to all of our UN*X boxes as "UNIX". [...]
 >>
 >>Any other opinions?
 >
 >I noticed that in the paragraph above you used `UN*X' instead of
 >`UNIX' to refer to OSs that were not UNIX but did have some
 >capabilities of UNIX.
 >
 >Is this because you are competely aware of the difference?

My guess is that (|s)he just didn't want to get sued h(im|er)self!!! :-)

Cheers,
Stan.
--
X-Obligatory-.sig
    Stan Ryckman   sgr@alden.UUCP
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: collins@ists.ists.ca (Mike Collins)
Subject: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Institute for Space and Terrestrial Science
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 92 16:14:20 GMT

I have not been keeping up on the newsgroup. Could someone
tell me if FSF has changed their position on apple. There are
many of us who use macintosh computers, but do not subscribe
to apple's corporate neuroses. I cannot think of a better way
to subvert apple's position than to port all of GNU software to
the macintosh. Will FSF ever let macintosh users in from the cold?
I use many of GNU's applications on unix machines at work, and i 
subscribe, to a great extent, to their philosophy.

cheers
mjc
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: boening.pad@sni.de (Martin Boening)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Siemens Nixdorf Info.Sys. AG, Paderborn, Germany
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 09:12:27 GMT

In <1992Sep11.123540.19263@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> greg@gallifrey.ucs.uoknor.edu (Greg Trotter) writes:

>Asprin and Lineoleum were once brand names. But common usage (that's us,

That's Aspirin. We've had this confusion once before, when the group 
alt.fan.asprin was mistaken for a group concerning itself with the drug
called Aspirin rather than with the author Robert Lynn Asprin.

So long,
Martin
PS: Take two aspirin and don't think about it anymore :-)
--
Email: in the   USA ->  boening.pad@sni-usa.com
       outside  USA ->  boening.pad@sni.de
Paper Mail: Martin Boening, Siemens Nixdorf Informationssys. AG, SNI STO SI 325,
	Riemekestr. 160, 4790 Paderborn, W.-Germany  (Phone: +49 5251 835641)
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2921 comp.os.mach:1182
From: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Date: 5 Sep 92 15:10:41 GMT
Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth


(Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

pcg> It would astonish me if, having set a precedent w.r.t.
pcg> UCB/NET2/BSDI, USL were not to use it immediately w.r.t.
pcg> CMU/Mach3/FSF. By doing so they would effectively prevent the OSF,
pcg> with their current staff, from producing an OSF/n that does not
pcg> require an USL Unix source license.

jclark> Could this be a reason for some commerical companies going to
jclark> 'Chorus'.

But Chorus is friends with USL and their licensee, so they have nothing
to fear. Indeed USL could have an interest in attacking Mach3, as this
would leave Chorus, which is their technology of choice, as the only
major Unix microkernel implementation.

jclark> Then again, maybe the implementors of VAX/VMS saw some ATT code
jclark> as well, that leaves IBM, but not the PC since Microsoft is a
jclark> long time UNIX licensee.

I see the jocular tone, but the serious point is that USL cares only if
somebody "tainted" with access to USL Unix sources is producing
something that competes more or less directly with SVR4.

And yes, now that you make me think of it, probably USL could attack
Windows NT on at least one of the grounds on which it is attacking
UCB/BSDI.

Surely Windows NT is Unix-like, a competitor of SVR4, and developed by
people that previously worked on Xenix, and that may well have copied
USL's trade secrets in the Windows NT code. I'd be surprised if they had
not, given the nature of those 'secrets' -- I'd even be prepared to
think that some parts of Windows NT source are strikingly similar, and
may look copied from, parts of USL's Unix source code.

Even worse, odds are that just as Richard Rashid, the developer of Mach,
a person who has been privvy to and been working with licensed USL trade
secrets for over a dozen years, has become Microsoft's technical
director for NT, there are several UCB alumni that have contributed to
the development of BSD4.x that are now working for Microsoft on Windows
NT.

If I were USL I would sue Microsoft over Windows NT rather than UCB
over BSD, as Windows NT looks a much more terrible competitor to SVR4
than BSDI. Unless USL is suing BSDI/UCB as the easier target, to
establish a precedent, and having done that ...
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | JNET: pcg@uk.ac.aber
Dept of CS, University of Wales    | UUCP: ...!mcsun!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com (Scott E. Preece)
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Organization: Motorola MCG, Urbana Design Center
Distribution: gnu
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 05:47:23 GMT


In article <BuG1v1.E5o@ddsw1.mcs.com> karl@ddsw1.mcs.COM (Karl Denninger) writes:

|   Whoh!  Just a minute here!
|
|   Just because a student does work on a program does NOT make the code he or
|   she writes the property of anyone else!  I know that I never signed
|   anything like that in college, and wouldn't have at any cost.
|
|   That software that I wrote in college is MY property.  No one else's.  I
|   would have refused to sign away those rights and sued the school if
|   necessary to retain them.  The college would be on damn thin ice requiring
|   me to give up my code in order to consider it as "counting" in coursework 
|   I do believe.  They are >certainly< not my employer; in fact, the exact
|   opposite I belive (I pay tuition, in effect employing >them< to teach me
|   something).
---
If you worked on UNIX source code in college and the college never
informed you of license restrictions, that just adds to their potential
liability to AT&T for violating their license.

I would be really surprised if the people who worked on BSD weren't
working under agreements with the University of California that
transferred the copyright on the work they did -- certainly when I
worked as a student for a college (we're not talking homework here,
we're talking about work done for pay) it was under that kind of
agreement.
--
scott preece
motorola/mcg urbana design center	1101 e. university, urbana, il   61801
uucp:	uunet!uiucuxc!udc!preece,	 arpa:	preece@urbana.mcd.mot.com
phone:	217-384-8589			  fax:	217-384-8550

Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2926 comp.org.eff.talk:5694 comp.unix.bsd:5175 comp.os.mach:1185 news.groups:17628
From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 3 Sep 92 14:44:45 GMT
Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK.

terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert) writes:
> 	I think we are all aware of the failings of usenet as a political
> organizational tool, or as an organizational tool in general.  People will
> read only the topic categories in which they are interested in, and it is
> this categorization (and the [mostly academic] pressure to keep it) that
> prevents it from being used this way.

To be more precise, people who are in a position to help rarely read the
obvious newsgroups where one might post a plea.

I've found that the most effective way to organize or find something via
Usenet is to stick an advert in your .signature and carry on posting to a
wide range of newsgroups about unrelated matters.

For example, cross-posting to the rec.music groups in search of John Foxx
fans had only limited success.  But sticking a message in my .signature
saying "If you're a fan of John Foxx, please send me mail" got me about one
response a day.  A list of people was put together, letters sent to some
record companies, and now the first three Ultravox! albums are out on CD.

Posting to rec.music saying "I'm looking for the U2 Negativland CD" didn't
even get me a single reply.  But a .signature advert worked, I got about ten
helpful pointers, and a reader of alt.atheism found me a copy.

So if you want to organize a boycott of AT&T for some reason, say why and
mention who to contact for more information.  Express it in four lines or
less, and make it your .signature.  If you can't convince people it might be
important in less than four lines you don't have much hope of convincing
anybody anyway.


mathew
-- 
"Even the most bizarre of the unions (probably that between a cat's gall
 stone and a single note 'G' from CNN's ident theme) managed to convey a
 sense of rampant impropriety."  -- 'Fortran Five', Simon G. Lawrence Leonard
From: ahaley@eoe.co.uk (Andrew Haley)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GATT
Date: 7 Sep 92 12:33:01 GMT
Organization: EO Europe Limited, Cambridge, UK
X-Newsreader: Tin 1.1 PL3

dc@stars.gsfc.nasa.gov (Dave Cottingham) writes:
: In article <17044.9209021056@pyr.swan.ac.uk>, iiitac@PYR.SWAN.AC.UK (Alan Cox) writes...
: >I guess we have to hope that GATT takes so long to negotiate that
: >the US ceases to be a credible world power (two dollars to the pound
: >and its rising 8-)) or has its much overdue revolution.
: 
: Much overdue revolution?  We just had one 216 years ago.  When was
: your last one?

1649.

:  - Dave

Andrew.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: S_TITZ@iravcl.ira.uka.de (Olaf Titz)
Subject: Re: copyleftappleout NO!
Organization: Fachschaft Informatik, Uni Karlsruhe
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 15:34:51 GMT
X-News-Reader: VMS NEWS 1.23

In <88194@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu writes:

>  Instead of ending the boycott, enforce a boycott.  It's a bit late, but a
>  change from copyleft to copyleftappleout on all future GNU releases would
>  be interesting.

Interesting, perhaps. Of use, surely no.

It would IMHO violate the spirit that stood behind the original
thoughts of software and programming freedom. Not only that software
published by FSF surely gets ported to Apple computers (and the ones
to benefit from this fact are at first the users and programmers of
Apple computers, maybe they use Apple machines not at their own choice
- I know such cases well...) but the whole *concept* of free software
surely needs 'portation' into the Apple user community as well, given
the prices usually charged for usable Apple programs. There are a lot
of programmers who are willing to write free programs or port existing
ones to Apple computers for the benefit of Apple users, and support
this by using the GPL for their own Apple programs, for the benefit of
Apple users again. Why unnecessarily embarassing them by a
no-Apple-clause?

I do in no way support Apple's lawsuits, but I don't support the
notion of backfiring by similar means (exclusion) either. (To prevent
the usual flames: I have absolutely no connection to Apple Computer
Inc. or supporting comanies.)

MfG,
        Olaf
-- 
    o     Olaf Titz - comp.sc.student - univ of karlsruhe - germany
 _ /<_    s_titz@iravcl.ira.uka.de - uknf@dkauni2.bitnet - praetorius@irc
(_)>(_)   +49-721-60439 - did i forget something?
There are more things in heaven and on earth, Horatio
 Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.   - Shakespeare
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: kfogel@occs.cs.oberlin.edu (Karl Fogel)
Subject: Re: Why the boycott of Macintoshes?
Organization: Oberlin College Computer Science
	<shebs-040992103318@delos.apple.com>
	<1992Sep05.202056.6350@kithrup.COM>
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 20:26:09 GMT
X-Posted-From: occs.cs.oberlin.edu
X-Posted-Through: sol.ctr.columbia.edu

In article <1992Sep05.202056.6350@kithrup.COM> sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:

>   Tell me... are all apple employees as ignorant of what their company is
>   doing, or do they keep you in the dark just so you can make a fool of
>   yourself?
>
>   Try reading the actual issues involved.  You might be surprised to find out
>   that Apple is still suing both HP and Microsoft, that Apple is preparing to
>   appeal the decisions made to cause most of the claims to be dismissed, and
>   that Apple has not changed its policies at all.
>
>   But I guess reality doesn't much matter to an Apple employee, huh?
>
>   -- 
>   Sean Eric Fagan  | "You can't get lost in one room, no matter how
>   sef@kithrup.COM  |  little effort you make to learn your way around."
>   -----------------+    -- William E Davidsen (william@crd.GE.COM)
>   Any opinions expressed are my own, and generally unpopular with others.


	Working for Apple is not quite the same as mugging young
children for a living. There was no need insult Stan Shebs like
that...  a quick glance at Apple's success in the marketplace will
tell you that they aren't hiring "fools". Are you aware of every legal
action taken by *your* employer? I happen to think the Apple boycott
is a good idea, since Apple does tend to be possesive, even predatory,
about ideas that it didn't even originate.  But that's no reason to go
dumping core on its employees, who are not in control of what's going
on at the top echelons. Or do you really expect it's programmers to
give up their incomes and quit over this? Idea-patents are pretty
awful, but it's not worth flaming everyone who is even remotely
connected with them. Wouldn't you agree?

--

                            -Karl Fogel
	     	     kfogel@occs.cs.oberlin.edu
		      fogel@antares.mcs.anl.gov

	    "I'm not lost... I know exactly where I'm not!"

       [ Another member of the League for Programming Freedom...  ]
       [ For information about the League, (i.e.: what is the LPF ]
       [ for? How can I join?) email kfogel@occs.cs.oberlin.edu.  ]
              ***  Help stop the patenting of ideas now!  ***
From: frain@cis.ksu.edu (Jerry Frain)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 23:49:49 GMT
Organization: Kansas State University
NNTP-Posting-Host: depot.cis.ksu.edu

dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes:

> So let me get this straight: Apple sued people, claiming their
> copyrights were infringed.  This, of course, was evil and perfectly
> valid grounds for a boycott.  USL is in the process of suing some
> people, claiming that their copyrights were infringed.  Of course,
> this is completely understandable and we shouldn't hold it against
> them.

It is not just why Apple or USL is suing, it is more an issue of
exactly what has been copyrighted.

Apple has copyrighted the "look and feel" of their Macintosh
interface.  The GPL does not believe that the "look and feel" of a
program should be considered the property of the program author.

Apple sues to protect their copyright, the GPL boycotts Apple because
they feel it is a silly copyright to begin with, and taking people to
court over the "look and feel" of a program is stupid.

USL, on the other hand has copyrighted the unpublished source code
used in their UNIX operating system.  USL believes that BSDI, by using
code from the Berkeley NET/2 release which the USL believes contains
their source code, has in effect "plagiarized", by effectively using
USL code in their OS release.

The GPL has not boycotted the USL, because they believe that an
author's source code, much in the same way that an author's manuscript
for a book, is the property of that author.

Regardless of where your beliefs lie, it is clear that these two
issues are very different.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jerry Frain, Systems Programmer         |  "Back off man, I'm a scientist."
Kansas State University                 |  frain@cis.ksu.edu
Department of Computer & Info Sciences  |  ...!rutgers!depot!frain


Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: farrow@ucsu.Colorado.EDU (J. Scott Farrow)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark? ("UNIX" != "AT&T System V")
Date: 9 Sep 92 21:33:52 GMT
Reply-To: farrow@fido.Colorado.EDU
Distribution: na
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder

bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes:

>In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
...
>The term "UNIX" has not fallen into common use in the sense than it refers
>to any "UNIX-like" product. 
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>			     To ensure that this does not happen AT&T
>must (and has) taken action to prevent BSDI from using the trademark
>in an inappropriate way.
>--
>(Dr.) John Bruner, Deputy Director			bruner@csrd.uiuc.edu
>Center for Supercomputing Research & Development	(217) 244-4476 (voice)
>University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign		(217) 244-1351 (FAX)
>465 CSRL, MC-264; 1308 West Main St.; Urbana, IL  61801-2307


The hell it hasn't! AT&T/USL are several years too late. I was using UN*X for 
over a year before I even heard of AT&T System V. At CU Boulder, we don't even 
have any SysV machines that I know of, yet we refer to all of our UN*X boxes as
"UNIX". It has been at least several years since "UNIX" meant AT&T System V, 
and I bet nobody outside of AT&T and USL still mean that when they say "UNIX". 
I say "UNIX" does indeed refer to any UNIX-like product. In fact, I would say 
"UNIX" is now understood to mean a general class of OS's to most people in the 
computing field.

Any other opinions?

Scott

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The opinions herein are my own and do not represent the views of my employer,
or anyone else but me!

--
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Scott Farrow - Student Programmer/Operator, University of Colorado at Boulder
Computing and Network Services, Campus Box 455, Boulder, CO 80309-0455  USA 
InterNet: farrow@spot.colorado.edu, Phone: (303) 492-4428
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2922 comp.os.mach:1183
From: kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu (Stephen Kurtzman)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Date: 5 Sep 1992 11:03:43 -0700
Organization: University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA
NNTP-Posting-Host: pollux.usc.edu

In article <PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk
(Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

>Even worse, odds are that just as Richard Rashid, the developer of Mach,
>a person who has been privvy to and been working with licensed USL trade
>secrets for over a dozen years, has become Microsoft's technical
>director for NT, there are several UCB alumni that have contributed to
>the development of BSD4.x that are now working for Microsoft on Windows NT.

But, the chief architect of Windows NT is Dave Cutler, the father of
DEC's RSX-11M and VMS operating systems. So, perhaps in this lawsuit-
happy climate, DEC should sue Microsoft also. Maybe a combination of
AT&T and DEC can do to Microsoft what Apple couldn't. :)

-- 

Stephen Kurtzman             | "where desire writhed there stands a stone;
kurtzman@pollux.usc.edu      |  the change was sudden and complete"
                             |                              -- Maggie Roche
From: terry@thisbe.Eng.Sandy.Novell.COM (Terry Lambert)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Novell NPD -- Sandy, UT
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 19:06:23 GMT

In article <18mebnINNa5a@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>In article <1992Sep10.015507.27974@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>	The "glee" comes from the appearance of endorsement of an apparent
>>"common use" of the term by non-critical mention of it in an official AT&T
>>document.  Since it was an official document, it state a position by AT&T
>>on the matter by it's reference.
>
>I didn't see an endorsement of the common misuse of the term, I saw an
>acknowledgement of it.  The purpose of a sentence that says, "BSD Unix is
>commonly called Berkeley Unix," serves the purpose of clarifying things for
>readers who have heard the term "Berkeley Unix".  As much as AT&T and USL
>try to assert their trademark, they live in the real world and must deal
>with the fact that many people use the shorthand "Berkeley Unix".

Your quote says it all: "BSD Unix is commonly called Berkeley Unix".  If
it isn't an endorsement of the term "Berkeley Unix", it *is* one of
"BSD Unix".  Either way, it still appears to endorse the idea that "Unix"
is a noun and "BSD" is an adjective modifier under "proper use", even if
"Berkeley" isn't.


					Terry Lambert
					terry_lambert@gateway.novell.com
					terry@icarus.weber.edu

---
Disclaimer:  Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of
my present or previous employers.