From: jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Embroiled in Computer Software Lawsuit
Date: 26 Jan 93 22:12:18 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Toshiba America MRI Inc, S. San Francisco, CA.


Robert Withrow, witr@rwwa.COM writes:

> | [USL director of corporate relations Larry] Lytle [...] claims that more
> | than 100 files, out of the more than 8000 in NET2, have code
> | stolen [sic] from UNIX.
> 
> So.  They claim that a *maximum* of 1.25% of the code was ``stolen'', and
> since they say ``have [some] code stolen'', it probably means that the
> only a fraction of these modules bears any similarity to the v32 code.
> Let's be generous and say that 0.5% of the code has any real similarity.
> 
> And they think this is a strong case?

and to carry this statistical lie to it's obvious conclusion, the 100 files
are less than 0.00000000001% of all files in the universe ... so what are they
bitching about?

The truth is that most of the 8000 files are for many contributed things
that have absolutely no relation to any AT&T product ... any more than
the current contents of various other archives across the net.

But 100 files is a significant number of the several hundred files that
represent the core unix directory trees on the tape! I was very eager to
get 386BSD downloaded, until I looked through the kernel source tree and
it was frankly obvious that much of it was:

	1) derived from the AT&T copyrighted puesdo code in Bach's
	   "The Design of the UNIX Operating System" (see clock interrupt
	    routine plus the other files that DIRECTLY reference pages
	    from Bach).

	2) Direct modification & re-write of AT&T source, complete with
	   original UNIX subroutine and variable names. Some times you
	   find they were just to lazy to remove/re-write UNIX code so
	   they simply deleted the UNIX code and left the comment:

	   UNIX_subr() {

		/*
		 * code body deleted
		 */
		return(some_val);
	   }

	   (see the kernel acct code)

Both practices are clear copyright violations.  UNIX was copyrighted in
the original Version 5 release that was made available to Berkeley back
in 1974/75 when Ken was teaching/working there for a while. Granted the
lawyers later had the copyrights removed because copyright case law on
software was unfavorable for a while ... but that doesn't invalidate the
original copyright or it's protection of later derived code ... or the
right of AT&T/USL to copyight later work as derived from this original
work.

Case law in the US clearly outlines what are acceptable "reverse engineering"
proceedures. UCB's efforts aren't even close. Mark Williams V6/V7 unix clone
and many BIOS vendors where held to and passed these standards. Why should
we now accept relaxing the standard so that public university can make a
practice of ripping-off vendors that supply their sources under non-disclosure?

It is VERY scary to consider hiring UCB grads with such a warped view of
what IS and IS NOT legal to incorporate into the product they may produce
for you. Given the effort that other major universities expend to prevent
plagiarism not even as blatant as this, it is hard to understand where the
grassroots support for UCB is comming from.

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.

Call's to your State Assemblyman and Pete Wilsons office for a full inquiry
may well be in order.  No university or other state employee should be able
to subject Calif tax payers to a possible multi-millon dollar settlement for
any such violation. Maybe we should push for legislation to exempt public
employees and their management from legal protection by the state and allow
their current and future assets to be available for such settlements. Maybe
if they were directly at risk they would think twice about crossing over the
line, or allowing their staff to put them at risk.

John Bass
DMS Design
jbass@dmsd.com
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi