HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gsh7w@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Hennessy)
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Organization: University of Virginia
Date: Wed, 16 Sep 1992 01:38:23 GMT

I wrote:
#Because restricing the distribution of code is what the FSF is
#fighting for. 

Sigh. I meant "fighting *AGAINST*."

--
-Greg Hennessy, University of Virginia
 USPS Mail:     Astronomy Department, Charlottesville, VA 22903-2475 USA
 Internet:      gsh7w@virginia.edu  
 UUCP:		...!uunet!virginia!gsh7w
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2929 comp.org.eff.talk:5698 comp.unix.bsd:5190 comp.os.mach:1187 misc.int-property:927 alt.suit.att-bsdi:254
From: peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 6 Sep 92 03:00:32 GMT
Organization: Taronga Park BBS

In article <1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter) writes:
>Actually, NET2 was the first release from CSRG (the BSD people) that did not
>require a license from ATT/USL. 

I thought that was true of Net/1 as well, except that Net/1 had a lot less
in it.

>Personally, I'll invest any future money of my own, or my employer in 
>POSIX compliant OS (like OSF1, OS/2, Windows NT, etc).

You're assuming that "posix compliant" means anything actually useful.
From what I've seen it's seriously incomplete for any real applications,
and so amounts to no more than a checkmark on a requirements sheet.
-- 
                                                                `-_-'
                         Have you hugged your wolf today?        'U`

Peter da Silva, Taronga Park BBS, Houston, TX  +1 713 568 0480/1032
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.os.mach
From: riley@theory.TC.Cornell.EDU (Daniel S. Riley)
Subject: Re: AT&T USL vs. BSDI/UCB, Mach3, OSF/1, GNU HURD, Linux
Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Organization: Cornell Theory Center
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 15:40:30 GMT

In article <PCG.92Sep9230720@aberdb.aber.ac.uk> pcg@aber.ac.uk (Piercarlo Grandi) writes:
>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:
[...]
>	2) all work done by the licensee *on* UNIX (the kernel) becomes
>	the intellectual property of the licensor, AT&T/USL.

I believe CSRG never signed a license with this clause.  Several
people have stated that CSRG refused to sign any UNIX licenses after
32V specifically because of the appearance of this clause.  This is
supported by the observation that the last license sited in the USL
complaint is the 32V license, and the USL complaint never cites this
clause.  If CSRG had agreed to such a license, there surely would not
be a BSDI, and the USL suit would be open-and-shut.

Followups to alt.suit.att-bsdi, where this has been discussed before.

-- 
-Dan Riley                          Internet: dsr@lns598.tn.cornell.edu
-Wilson Lab, Cornell University     HEPNET/SPAN: lns598::dsr (44630::dsr)
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2935 comp.org.eff.talk:5707 comp.unix.bsd:5212 comp.os.mach:1192 misc.int-property:929 alt.suit.att-bsdi:257
From: brnstnd@nyu.edu (D. J. Bernstein)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)
Date: 6 Sep 92 23:45:59 GMT
Organization: IR

In article <1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter) writes:
> Actually, NET2 was the first release from CSRG (the BSD people) that did not
> require a license from ATT/USL. 

False. Unless the folks who control gatekeeper.dec.com have done
something stupid recently, you can still pick up the Net/1 release from
there. Guess what? Net/1 came before Net/2. (This will be a thorn in
AT&T's side: they've lost their opportunity to attack those pieces of
Net/2 which were already published in Net/1.)

> BTW: If software patents were the de-facto mechanism for protecting
> software intellectual property back in the 70s-- I don't this action 
> (suit) would have happened.

Reality check: AT&T *did* patent the setuid bit. So what are you talking
about? The issues here are copyright and perhaps trade secret. Patent is
basically irrelevant because UNIX was hardly an invention. It was just a
very sensible combination of old techniques.

> how the hell can someone know what is ok to disclose and
> what is not ok?

This is, in principle, easy: if you are under contract not to disclose
what you read from AT&T code, and you read AT&T code, then you know it's
not okay to disclose it. Trade secret basically formalizes this area of
law: it provides for more severe penalties, but nullifies nondisclosure
agreements after some period of time defined by case law.

---Dan
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2971 comp.org.eff.talk:5756 comp.unix.bsd:5416 comp.os.mach:1217 misc.int-property:941 alt.suit.att-bsdi:273
From: barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin)
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: 9 Sep 1992 22:41:02 GMT
Organization: Thinking Machines Corporation, Cambridge MA, USA
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: telecaster.think.com

In article <KANDALL.92Sep9170758@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) writes:
>I think the point is that AT&T itself is using, or acknowledging the
>use of, their TM as a generic noun, thereby (possibly) weakening their
>claims to the TM.

In the paragraph that was quoted, they first use it as an adjective, in the
phrase "BSD Unix Operating System".  Then in a parenthetical comment they
say, "BSD Unix is frequently called 'Berkeley Unix'".  I think you're
allowed to abbreviate in this manner after you've initially used the
trademark term in the official way.

One could also consider the parenthetical comment to be talking about the
terms, not the systems.  For instance, if I wrote "Fast is sometimes called
'speedy'", "fast" is still an adjective.  Actually, to be completely
proper, you'd probably have to quote "BSD Unix" and "Fast" in those cases,
but that's a level of detail that I doubt anyone would be held to.

>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.

To relate to my above comment about using it as an adjective first, and
then abbreviating, I think it's acceptable for a Kleenex commercial to say
something like: "I use Kleenex facial tissues because they're soft.
Kleenex: it's nice to your face."  Notice that in the second sentence, the
phrase "Kleenex facial tissues" has been abbreviated to "Kleenex", now that
the context has been established by the first sentence.

-- 
Barry Margolin
System Manager, Thinking Machines Corp.

barmar@think.com          {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.unix.wizards,comp.unix.questions
From: fmbutt@engage.sps.mot.com (Farooq M. Butt)
Subject: Current list of GNU tools ?
Organization: Motorola RISC Software, Austin, TX
Date: Thu, 10 Sep 1992 21:56:36 GMT

GNUOIDS:

could some kind soul in GNUland please mail me the current list of
all GNU tools ?  I realize that this is probably a big time FAQ 
but I don't really know how else to find out what the status of the
HURD is...

PS: if the "correct" answer is to call someone at FSF, I'd appreciate 
a name and a number.  

PPS: does anybody know if Mike Rowan is still out at FSF ? If so 
does somebody have his email address ?


Thanks !

fmb

-- 
Standard High-Tech Disclaimer: NOTHING  in the above article has the slightest 
relationship to reality. If any reality correspondences are found, please 
notify me IMMEDIATELY. Any threats, abuse or stupidity of any kind is purely 
UNintentional. These are MY Opinions NOT my employer's.
Xref: sparky gnu.misc.discuss:2958 comp.org.eff.talk:5739 comp.unix.bsd:5367 comp.os.mach:1206 misc.int-property:936 alt.suit.att-bsdi:269
From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall)
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: 9 Sep 92 22:07:58 GMT
	<1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> <Bu5DBu.IA6@rahul.net>
	<1992Sep8.135040.5243@pegasus.com>
	<BRUNER.92Sep8172455@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu>
Distribution: na
Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan

>>>>> On 8 Sep 92 17:24:55, bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) said:

John> I don't understand the glee that some have expressed in finding a
John> mention of "Berkeley UNIX" in a SVR4 manual.

Personally, I nearly got sick.

John> This has no effect upon
John> the trademark status of the term "UNIX", especially because I would be
John> willing to bet that the manual explicitly points out the trademark
John> status of "UNIX" in at least one place.

I am sure it does.

I think the point is that AT&T itself is using, or acknowledging the
use of, their TM as a generic noun, thereby (possibly) weakening their
claims to the TM.

John> One cannot assert that a trademark has lost its protected status just
John> because it is a widely-recognized name.  "Kleenex" is almost certainly
John> a more widely-recognized name than "UNIX", but it is still a
John> registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark.

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.


Mike
----
From: leisner@annapurna.pa.dec.com (Marty Leisner)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Unix Review Native-code C++ compilers
Date: 10 Sep 92 19:10:11 GMT
Reply-To: leisner.henr801c@xerox.com
Organization: Xerox
X-Received: by usenet.pa.dec.com; id AA18168; Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:11:19 -0700
X-Received: by inet-gw-1.pa.dec.com; id AA02115; Thu, 10 Sep 92 12:11:18 -0700
X-Received: from zombi ([13.1.189.45]) by alpha.xerox.com with SMTP id <15671>; Thu, 10 Sep 1992 12:10:54 PDT
X-Received: from annapurna.wbst147.xerox.com ([13.1.157.12]) by zombi (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA00420; Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:10:50 EDT
X-Received: by annapurna.wbst147.xerox.com (4.1/SMI-4.1)id AA06195; Thu, 10 Sep 92 15:10:11 EDT
X-To: editor@ureview.com,

X-        gnu.misc.discuss.usenet%decwrl.dec.com@eso.mc.xerox.com
X-Cc: leisner@eso.mc.xerox.com


Unix Review neglected to mention g++ in their native code C++ compilers.

The Review is in the October, 1992 issue.

It mentions Zortech C++, TauMetric C++ and Liant C++...

It didn't recommend any of them, it says the decision will generally be made on the 
basis of price.

I think if you are doing serious programming, price is irrelevant, your time is.

Marty    leisner.henr801c@xerox.com 
          Member of the League for Programming Freedom 
 	Give me source or waste my time..
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: bpb9204@tamsun.tamu.edu (Brent)
Subject: Gripe with Bison code (and a suggested fix...)
Organization: Texas A&M Univ., Inc.
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 04:15:40 GMT


I have a problem with some of the Bison code (version 1.18).  Not the
generated code, but bison's source.

For instance, here is a little jewel of coding wizardy.  It can be also
labeled as, "how to do variable args when you don't know how."

----------------------  code from main.c
void fatals(fmt,x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8)
char *fmt;
{
  char buffer[some_size];
  sprintf(buffer, fmt, x1,x2,x3,x4,x5,x6,x7,x8);
}
---------------------- end of code

This is totally ridiculous!  Of course, my compiler is probably the only one
that chokes on this (because x1-x8 have no type declared), but that's 
irrelevant.  This coding style is what gives C such a bad name (OK,
*one* of the things), not to mention all the extra parameters that
have to be passed to sprintf every time it's called, even if they are zero.

Here is the fixed code:

---------------------
#include <stdarg.h>  /* or varargs.h or whatever your system uses */

void fatals( char *fmt, ...)
{
  char buffer[BUF_SIZE];
  va_list ap; 

  va_start( ap, fmt);
  (void)vsprintf( buffer, fmt, ap);  // ohhh, that's what the vprintf's do...
  va_end(ap);
}
---------------------------

Then, you would declare the function as "void fatals(char *, ...);" where-
ever you used it.  It took me 5 minutes to learn how to *properly* use
variable-argument functions.  When I see code like the first snippet,
I naturally wonder about the other sections that my compiler doesn't
reject.

I am going to go through and fix this function throughout the source.  

I am willing to distribute the fixed code, provided the FSF, et al will
accept code modifications from a Macintosh. 

-Brent
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.
Distribution: na
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 20:06:41 GMT

In article <BRUNER.92Sep8172455@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu> bruner@sp15.csrd.uiuc.edu (John Bruner) writes:
>I don't understand the glee that some have expressed in finding a
>mention of "Berkeley UNIX" in a SVR4 manual.  This has no effect upon
>the trademark status of the term "UNIX", especially because I would be
>willing to bet that the manual explicitly points out the trademark
>status of "UNIX" in at least one place.
>
>One cannot assert that a trademark has lost its protected status just
>because it is a widely-recognized name.  "Kleenex" is almost certainly
>a more widely-recognized name than "UNIX", but it is still a
>registered trademark of Kimberly-Clark.

The same trademark can be used by more than one company and still be
protected, too.  A good example is Francis Barraud's painting "His
Master's Voice" which is used as a trade mark by RCA, RCA-Victor Records
(BMG), JVC (Victor of Japan), Deutsche Grammophon, Parlophone/EMI and
several others.  All of these firms were at one time tied to the
Victor Talking Machine Company of Camden, New Jersey but a couple
world wars and depressions broke them apart.

-- 
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!"|
From: carlton@husc10.harvard.edu (david carlton)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: CACM article on look-and-feel lawsuits
Date: 7 Sep 92 17:44:33 GMT
Distribution: gnu
Organization: Citizens for Boysenberry Jam

There's an article on p. 25 of the Sep. 1992 issue of Communications
of the ACM on the recent decisions in look-and-feel copyright lawsuits
that I found worth reading.

david carlton
carlton@husc.harvard.edu

       America!!  I saw it all!!  Vomiting!  Waving!  JERRY FALWELLING
       into your void tube of UHF oblivion!!  SAFEWAY of the mind --
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 12:52:05 GMT

brtmac@maverick.ksu.ksu.edu (Brett McCoy) writes:

>You can to do exactly that.  Once a name become used to refer to a
>generic product, and not a specific brand, the trademark is lost.
>Kleenex, if it hasn't already happened, will cease to become a
>trademark when the current term (for lack of a better word) runs
>out.  The same is likely to happen to Xerox, and has happened for
>many other "brands".

*chuckle*

I doubt Xerox will lose the trademark.  After seeing that happen to 
other trademakrs, they began protecting the trademark vigorously but
politely.  IMHO, people ask less and less for "xerox machines" and
more and more for "copiers".

This summer I was working at a Kodak plant and wanted to copy some
forms.  I made the mistake of asking for a "xerox" machine.  From the
looks they gave me you'd think I asked for the Child Molestation room.
-- 
Steve: #1 of human beings on the Zwicky list
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: peba@lesti.hut.fi (Petri M Aukia)
Subject: Re: NET2 no longer a trade secret, and no international copyright either?
Followup-To: gnu.misc.discuss
Organization: Helsinki University of Technology, Finland
Date: 15 Sep 92 18:54:50

	Intresting, what is 32V? 
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
peba@vipunen.hut.fi   I  The data in this letter is subject to the disclaimer
Petri Aukia           I  in Letter ZS90-0112,  which is available from IBM on
Helsinki U of Tech    I  request.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: rwe11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Earnshaw)
Subject: Re: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Reply-To: rwe11@cl.cam.ac.uk (Richard Earnshaw)
Organization: U of Cambridge, England
Distribution: inet
Date: Fri, 11 Sep 1992 08:45:16 GMT

In article <18ns8rINNd81@agate.berkeley.edu>, ag@cogsci.Berkeley.EDU
(Keith Gabryelski) writes:
	....
|> 
|> Pax, Keith
|> 
|> Ps:
|> 
|> When I four years old I used the words `Kleenex' and `Band-Aid' to
|> refer to generic products of their respected kind.  Neither company
|> paid much attention to my obviously wrong use of their trademarked
|> brand names.
|> 
|> Both companies still have trademark rights to the names (albeit
|> possibly on shakey ground).
|> 
|> I doubt USL needs to pay attention to singular illerates.
|> 
|> By the way: I don't speak for anyone but myself.

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.

Richard

-------------------------------------------
Richard Earnshaw
University of Cambridge Computer Laboratory
Pembroke Street
Cambridge  CB2 3QG
UK
From: dreier@beirut.berkeley.edu (Roland Dreier)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: "official" FSF position on apple
Date: 14 Sep 92 15:44:07
Organization: U.C. Berkeley Math. Department.
NNTP-Posting-Host: beirut.berkeley.edu
In-reply-to: collins@ists.ists.ca's message of 14 Sep 92 16:14:20 GMT

In article <1992Sep14.161420.18763@ists.ists.ca> collins@ists.ists.ca (Mike Collins) writes:
   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

I also am a little curious about FSF's position on Macintosh ports.  OK,
Apple sued some people, and maybe that's not so good.  But what differentiates
USL's suit against UC Berkeley (BTW, even though I may be a grad student
at UCB, I have/had nothing to do with BSD Unix (or whatever you want to call
it), I'm just a disinterested bystander) from Apple's suits?  Shouldn't the
FSF stop supporting >ALL< System V ports of their programs and remove them
from the "official" gnu archives?  For example, should the FSF not consider
Solaris 2.0 support for any programs because Sun abandoned BSD for SVR4?

Or is the FSF position on Apple perhaps less rational?

Roland

--
Roland Dreier                                        dreier@math.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
From: sturnbul@magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu (Stephen J Turnbull)
Subject: Re: Photo-CD - THE FACTS
Organization: The Ohio State University
Date: Wed, 9 Sep 1992 22:39:01 GMT

While Mother Nature doesn't publish source, she winks benignly at all
those physicists who spend all their time reverse engineering.
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi
From: dhesi@rahul.net (Rahul Dhesi)
Subject: Are you sure UNIX is a trade mark?
Organization: a2i network
Date: Sun, 6 Sep 1992 08:09:29 GMT

In  article <1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> entitled "AT&T
Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit)",
dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter) writes, among other things:

>That's one reason why it is an issue: Right or wrong, BSDI (with the
>help of CSRG) is selling a product, (occasionally) calling it UNIX without any 
>payment or credit to ATT/USL.

Let me quote from AT&T's "UNIX SYSTEM V RELEASE 4 BSD/XENIX
compatibility Guide", which has an AT&T logo on the cover.  My copy has
ISBN 0-13-933664-8.  On page 1 we find:

  UNIX System V Release 4.0 is, among other things, a merge of UNIX
  System V with the enhanced BSD UNIX Operating System.  (BSD UNIX is
  also known as "Berkeley UNIX.")

AT&T is correct.  BSD UNIX is indeed also known as "Berkeley UNIX."
(And this implicitly admits that BSD is also known as "BSD UNIX.")

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.

I'll make you a deal.  Give me the same legal budget that AT&T has.  If
I can't prove in court that UNIX is no longer a trade mark, I will
paint my head yellow.
--
Rahul Dhesi <dhesi@rahul.net>
also:  dhesi@cirrus.com
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss