HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: CSRD, University of Illinois
	<1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <Bu5DBu.IA6@rahul.net>
	<1992Sep8.135040.5243@pegasus.com>
	<BRUNER.92Sep8172455@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu>
	<KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com>
Distribution: na
Date: 9 Sep 92 08:51:57

In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>
> But K-C uses Kleenex to indicate their *brand*, and is undoubtedly
> careful about such things.  In this case AT&T/USL took some software
> which is officially called "BSD4.3" (right?) and is applying the term
> "Berkeley UNIX" to it.  K-C does not call other products "Scott
> Kleenex", "J+J Kleenex", etc.

Indeed, they don't.  They also don't contain Kleenex components in
some substantial form.  "Berkeley UNIX" is different -- it is based
upon AT&T code and its distribution is subject to an AT&T license.  I
think lawyers for BSDI, etc. would have a difficult time arguing
convincingly that a significant number of people who know what "UNIX" is
are unaware that "Berkeley UNIX" contains AT&T licensed code.  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
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Texas A&M University, College Station
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 07:15:18 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.051438.28757@uwm.edu> anthony@csd4.csd.uwm.edu (Anthony J Stieber) writes:
>In article <1992Sep15.033710.13698@tamsun.tamu.edu> sfuller@tamsun.tamu.edu (Steven Eric Fuller) writes:
>
>typical manuals and disk duplication).  They charge $2000 for a
>computer that costs $400 to make.  It sounds like they make a lot more
>money on their hardware than software.

I would like to see some facts on this one. I think you are blowing steam...

>
>>Apple has lost the UI suit againts uSoft and HP. FSF has won. (sort of) It is
>>time to kiss and make-up.
>
>No it isn't.  Apple has filed an appeal, the decision could still be
>overturned.  Apple hasn't exactly lost either, the details are fuzzy.
>The suit was in part based on contract law which has nothing to do with
>copyright law, so look and feel copyright is not yet dead.  Those parts
>of the suit that were based on copyright only (possibly) invalidated
>certains kinds of look and feel copyright.  Even if look and feel
>copyright were totally invalidated Apple could still file suits based
>on other laws.  

So when does it end? Is Apple evil-incarnate forever? Are Mac and Apple
users to be punished for what Apple MIGHT do?

>                Apple can still totally buy out or bankrupt small
>companies
>
Bill Gates can buy out or backrupt small companies too. Name 3 (or even 1)
that Apple has.

/s Steve Fuller        sfuller@tamu.edu        Texas A&M's UNIX Helpdesk
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sef@kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: Kithrup Enterprises, Ltd.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 19:53:35 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.185227.2692@blaze.cs.jhu.edu> arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes:
>Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
>it refuses to do so itself?  

Because that would be contrary to Stallman's (and, therefore, the FSF's)
goals, which are to make all software freely distributiable.  To further
that goal, the FSF has a suite of programs which can be distributed freely
(requiring only that the source be made available if binaries are
distributed), and few restrictions on what can be done with it.  Placing a
restriction like that on it would be against Stallman's goals and desires.

He just doesn't want to help Apple (or Lotus, for that matter) at all.  If
someone else wants to, there is nothing he can really do, short of
persuading that person that what (s)he is doing is wrong.

Just because the software is freely distributable doesn't mean that any and
all changes you make to it are going to be merged back into the FSF's
versions.  And the FSF has chosen to not accept any Apple-dependent changes.

Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

-- 
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.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: acheng@ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Originator: acheng@shalom.ncsa.uiuc.edu
Organization: Nat'l Ctr for Supercomp App (NCSA) @ University of Illinois
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 15:21:11 GMT


In article <1992Sep11.084516.16908@infodev.cam.ac.uk>, rwe11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Earnshaw) writes:
>I was always under the impression that dilution of a trade mark came from
>other companies being permitted to sell products using the same mark, if the
>manufacturer of `Scotties' were to start calling their product `Kleenex'
>and no action were taken then dilution would have occurred, but to say
>"pass me a Kleenex" is not.  Similarly, many people I know call a vacuum
>cleaner a Hoover; but, to the best of my knowledge Hoover is still a trade
>mark of guess who...
>
>The same applies to the brand name Unix; what you or I call it is pretty
>irrelevant, so long as other companies don't try to market under the same
>name.

I don't think commercial use matters.  Parker Brothers (I think) used
to have "Monopoly" as a registered trademark until a few years.  The
court ruled the word Monopoly is in such common use that it could no
longer be a trademark.

The word UN*X is not yet a common word.  Try strike up a conversation
in a bar, "Say, do you like UNIX?"  You will be very surprised by the
response.  Don't try that, especially not to a man who is four size
bigger than you.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:11:15 GMT

In article <1992Sep15.214339.8015@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: 
#If I can take a year to write a compiler for a Mac, or I can take a month
#to port GCC to the Mac, I'd argue that FSF is "helping" me get a compiler
#for the Mac.

This sort of definition is so fuzzy  as to be useless.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 15 Sep 92 19:41:56 GMT
Organization: University of Virginia

In article <1992Sep15.185227.2692@blaze.cs.jhu.edu>
arromdee@jyusenkyou.cs.jhu.edu (Ken Arromdee) writes: 
#Why _does_ the FSF allow its software to be ported to Apple machines, even if
#it refuses to do so itself?

Because restricing the distribution of code is what the FSF is
fighting for. 

Because the FSF is one of the few organizations that still recognize
the difference between forbidding someone from doing something, and
not helping somebody do something.

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: calyx.corp <calyx.corp@mixcom.mixcom.com>
Subject: GNU standards compliance list?
Organization: Milwaukee Internet Xchange BBS, Milwaukee, WI U.S.A.
Distribution: usa
Date: Wed, 09 Sep 1992 18:14:01 GMT

I am trying to get my programming department to use GNU tools.
They are hesitant (holding the attitude that our current tools ain't broke
[even though many of them actually are], so don't fix it, and fearful of
some clause in the GNU license agreement that would force our company to
forfeit our source code into the public domain) so I am trying the approach
of championing GNU's standards compliance, since many of the development
kits that come with the operating systems we are required to support really
suck.

Does anyone have a list of the standards documents that GNU tools (e.g.
gcc, shellutils, etc.) comply with?  I am specifically looking for versions
of the following documents:

ANSI C                    (X3159-198x, other drafts?)
POSIX                     (P1003.1, P1003.2, P1003.3)
X/Open Portability Guide  (Issue I, Issue II, Issue III)
SVID                      (Issue I, Issue II, Issue III)
other documents?

Please reply by email.  Thanks!

Nels Olsen
-- 
calyx.corp@mixcom.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups
From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 05:33:26 GMT

In article <ZGXI4JB@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
)In article <STDKAP1.92Sep1234657@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu> stdkap1@icarus.spc.uchicago.edu (Dietrich Kappe) writes:
)>So, Matt, is there any subject that would justify crossposting to all
)>newsgroups?
)
)Impending death of the net.
)-- 

Film at 11!

Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: dcb@kopachuk.uucp (David Breneman)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Tacoma Screw Products, Inc.
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 19:46:04 GMT

In article <716101727.10647@zooid.guild.org> ron@zooid.guild.org (Secret Mud) writes:
>
>Kleenex (and Xerox) may be holding on for the moment--but only by sternly
>policing any generic usage of their trademark.  A large number of common words
>used to be trademarked, but lost that protection when they entered into
>common usage for any similar generic product:  Dry Ice, Escalator, Brassiere,
>mimeograph, and zipper--all of these used to be trademarked names.

Also Phonograph, which was a trademark owned by Thos A Edison Inc. to
describe their line of talking machines.  Talking machine was the
generic term up until sometime after the turn of the century.
Gramophone was also used generically in the US around the turn of the
century (and still is in Britain).  It was a trademark of the
Berliner Talking Machine Company (a predicessor of Victor, as mentioned
in my previous post).  The "phonograph" in "His Master's Voice" is a
Berliner Gramophone.

Other examples: Videotape (Ampex), Teletype (Teletype Corp), Blender
(Waring Corp), Flipper (on a pinball machine -D. Gottlieb & Co.), etc...


-- 
David Breneman     Sys Admin, Tacoma Screw Products, Inc. |  ____  ____  ____
dcb@tacoma.uucp           |   SCREWIE the TSP CLOWN sez-  |   /   /___  /___/ 
 ..!uunet!tacoma!dcb      |  "Nylok lock nuts lose their  |  /   ____/ / 
CompuServe: 75760,1232    | binding strength after 1 use!"|
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2940 comp.unix.bsd:5244 alt.suit.att-bsdi:262
From: grog@adagio.UUCP (Greg Lehey)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Date: 7 Sep 92 08:53:34 GMT
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: LEMIS, Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany

In article <Bu5DBu.IA6@rahul.net> dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi) writes:
>The terms "BSD UNIX" and "Berkeley UNIX" have come into common use.
>Note that "UNIX" is a noun and "BSD" or "Berkeley" is a qualifier.  A
>trade mark, under US law, cannot be a noun.  As soon as it becomes a
>noun in common usage, its trade mark status is in jeopardy.

Well, yes. However, I see a much simpler answer to the problem. Leave
the name UNIX AT&T, USL or whatever they call themselves this week,
and refer to the operating system family as Unix. Trademarks are
case-sensitive.

-- 
Greg Lehey                       | Tel: +49-6637-1488              
LEMIS                            | Fax: +49-6637-1489
Schellnhausen 2, W-6324 Feldatal, Germany
*** NOTE ***: Headers get mangled at backbone - reply to grog%lemis@Germany.EU.net
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2976 comp.os.mach:1222
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: 9 Sep 92 23:07:20 GMT
	<PCG.92Sep5151041@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> <18b52oINNicr@agate.berkeley.edu>
Reply-To: pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi)
Organization: Prifysgol Cymru, Aberystwyth

On 5 Sep 92 20:24:56 GMT, jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck) said:
NNTP-Posting-Host: ohm.berkeley.edu

jbuck> (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:

pcg> If I were USL I would sue Microsoft over Windows NT rather than UCB
pcg> over BSD, as Windows NT looks a much more terrible competitor to
pcg> SVR4 than BSDI. Unless USL is suing BSDI/UCB as the easier target,
pcg> to establish a precedent, and having done that ...

jbuck> BSDI alone, as a small startup, would be an easy target, but the
jbuck> University of California has billions in assets and a big
jbuck> full-time legal staff.  Not an easy target at all; it will cost
jbuck> USL big money.  Not to mention that by suing the Regents, USL is
jbuck> suing Pete Wilson, Willie Brown, Leo McCarthy, and every major
jbuck> politician and many of the major millionaires in California.

jbuck> I heard comments from one UC lawyer that sounded like she wanted
jbuck> to pursue a very aggressive strategy,

Ah, this gives a lot of hope. It's surely better than CMU's decision not
to take risks, and avoid getting sued, at least for now. Usually
Universities have a strong inclination not to make trouble for
themselves, and cave in with powerful corporation and potential
sponsors.
But maybe after all it is the university of *California*.

jbuck> disputing USL's ownership of Unix itself, given all the major
jbuck> contributions from Berkeley and elsewhere.

I doubt this strategy is tenable. Part of the educational UNIX source
license are clauses that state:

	1) all work done by the licensee with UNIX must be supplied free
	of charge to any other UNIX source licensee.

	2) all work done by the licensee *on* UNIX (the kernel) becomes
	the intellectual property of the licensor, AT&T/USL.

While 1) is OK (and vaguely reminiscent of the GPL in its details), 2)
might well mean that USL is going to argue that the entire BSD (and
Mach1/2/3, probably) kernel is theirs exclusively.

That would be bad news indeed.
--
Piercarlo Grandi                   | JNET: pcg@uk.ac.aber
Dept of CS, University of Wales    | UUCP: ...!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@aber.ac.uk
From: jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: Editorial in opposition to Software Patents
Date: 6 Sep 1992 22:10:08 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: gnu
NNTP-Posting-Host: ohm.berkeley.edu

In article <RCLAYTON.92Sep5133146@quaver.urbana.mcd.mot.com>
rclayton@urbana.mcd.mot.com writes:
>There is an interesting editorial in the weekly newspaper "Barron's
>opposing software patents. Barron's is published by Dow Jones & Co., the
>same company that produces the Wall Street Journal. The editorial is in
>the edition dated September 7, 1992 (it is on sale Saturday, Sept. 5).

Barron's joins the conservative British magazine "The Economist"
("conservative" in the sense of the Conservative Party) in editorializing
against software patents, which they did just a few weeks ago (in the
issue that gave Cygnus Support a good bit of free publicity).

--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
From: jbuck@forney.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 16 Sep 1992 03:26:33 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
NNTP-Posting-Host: forney.berkeley.edu

In article <1992Sep15.221741.28261@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy) writes:
>In article <DREIER.92Sep15145233@lhasa.berkeley.edu>
>dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes: 
>#I'm still a little confused about the difference between USL and Apple.
>
>Apple is saying, "We will sue anyone who writes code that looks like a
>Mac." 
>
>USL is saying, "We will sue anyone who distributes our code without
>proper liscencing."

There certainly are distinctions between the two situations, but the
latter case isn't quite that simple.  It isn't all that clear what USL
is claiming; by attacking all of Networking-2, even though clearly almost
all of it is completely original work, without pinpointing any specific
cases, their suit is equivalent to trying to shut down an entire bookstore
because of a question about one or two books.  They aren't saying whether
the problem is copyright violation or trade secret violation either.
If USL had said "these specific modules violate our copyright" I'm sure
CSRG would have happily removed them from the Networking-2 distribution.
They tried to do just this -- have AT&T check their list of AT&T-free
files -- but AT&T refused to cooperate.

The Apple suit is clearly more dangerous, but the USL suit threatens the
cause of free software as well, by casting a cloud over the contributions
of many authors at Berkeley and elsewhere who contributed to Networking-2.
FSF and others may now feel compelled to waste time rewriting software
they could otherwise have obtained from Networking-2.

RMS's opinions on some of these issues differ from mine -- I think that
USL could make as strong a case -- that is, complete bullshit, but close
enough to tie up CMU in the courts for years -- against Mach 3.0, but
others disagree.  Who knows what the courts will decide?

Does this mean that FSF must boycott AT&T/USL in the same way as they
boycott Apple?  Not at all.  They are free to choose the most effective
strategy for each opponent.  Apple makes its money selling hardware (their
software revenue is tiny by comparison).  Strategy: make the hardware less
valuable by refusing to provide software for it.  USL makes its money
selling software and Unix licenses.  How to attack them?  By producing
software that provides the same functionality as theirs without giving any
revenue to them.  It seems to me that the appropriate strategy is being
used against each opponent.  If it is most effective to continue to use
Unix boxes (for which a Unix license has been paid) to develop Gnu, no
matter; in the long run, the Gnu project will cost USL more revenue than
a self-defeating boycott would.





--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2919 comp.org.eff.talk:5689 comp.unix.bsd:5166 comp.os.mach:1180 news.groups:17617 alt.suit.att-bsdi:252 misc.int-property:924
From: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,news.groups,alt.suit.att-bsdi,misc.int-property
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 5 Sep 92 10:00:03 GMT
Reply-To: jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala)
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland

>>IMHO it's not. AT&T is effectively expanding intellectual property protection
>>in general.
>
>Outside the US, as well? (Those countries exist, you know :-)

I think it is relatively accurate to say that it is not AT&T but the
U.S. government which is expanding intellectual property monopolies
outside USA as well.  But I also think there's a propagating effect,
ie. if AT&T expands the int. property monopolies the U.S. government
will pressure othe countries to do the same.

(GATT, WIPO)

//Jyrki
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: hemphill@lingua.csc.ti.com (Charles Hemphill)
Subject: Re: building elvis on an IBM 370 mainframe
Originator: hemphill@lingua
Organization: TI Computer Science Laboratory
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 22:06:06 GMT

I would like the following sentence in a texinfo file:

  This program normally tokenizes something like "Puerto\nRico" as one
  lexical item.

I have to use "Puerto\\nRico" for this to work in info, but it then
comes out as "Puerto\\nRico" in the .dvi version.  Any way to get it
to work in both?  There doesn't seen to be an @backslash command.

Thanks,
Charles
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 22:17:41 GMT

In article <DREIER.92Sep15145233@lhasa.berkeley.edu>
dreier@lhasa.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier) writes: 
#I'm still a little confused about the difference between USL and Apple.

Apple is saying, "We will sue anyone who writes code that looks like a
Mac." 

USL is saying, "We will sue anyone who distributes our code without
proper liscencing."

Understand the difference?

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
From: neeri@iis.ethz.ch (Matthias Neeracher)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: copyleftappleout
Date: 9 Sep 92 11:58:59 GMT
	<185s22INNnnb@agate.berkeley.edu> <shebs-040992103318@delos.apple.com>
	<88194@netnews.upenn.edu>
Organization: Integrated Systems Laboratory, ETH, Zurich

In article <88194@netnews.upenn.edu> weemba@sagi.wistar.upenn.edu (Matthew P Wiener) writes:
>In article <shebs-040992103318@delos.apple.com>, shebs@apple (Stan Shebs) writes:
>>Of course, there are now no "Apple legal maneuvers" to defend against, and
>>the only suggested condition for ending the boycott has been for Apple to
>>publicly forswear any future lawsuits, [...]
>
>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.

Definitely! I'd *love* to be sued by the FSF for porting GPLed software to
Macs :-)

Matthias

-----
Matthias Neeracher                                      neeri@iis.ethz.ch
  "And that's why I am going to turn this world upside down, and make
   of it a fire so *bright* that someone real will notice"
                                -- Vernor Vinge, _Tatja Grimm's World_