HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:15:22 GMT

nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle) writes:

>hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>>In article <1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>>>In article <1ho25nINNm7n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:

>Thus, they have copyright problems.  If you replace everything, is
>it still a "derivative work"?

We asked this exact same question around the office last week on another
program. The answer seems to be no - it is not a derivative work.

What is protected in a derivative work (if by a different author) is
the amount of new material added. This makes sense - you can't pick
up copyright protection on someone else's work just by adding something
here or there. So - what you essentially have to do is filter out the
added (derivitive) material and see what is left. 

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:752 comp.unix.misc:4757 rec.humor:37137
From: dsc9hmr@bumed10.med.navy.mil (H. Mike Rice)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.misc,rec.humor
Subject: Re: Sign o' times...
Date: 29 Dec 92 20:06:50 GMT
Distribution: comp
Organization: elf____electronic learning facilitator, inc

In article <JHI.92Dec28202844@vinkku.hut.fi> jhi@snakemail.hut.fi (Jarkko Hietaniemi) writes:

>   I guess this means that...well.  Does this mean that Tony Wosnjuk
>   has very recently got himself assigned to a brand new task? :-)

>   > Newsgroups: comp.unix.sys5.misc
>   > Subject: POSIX anyone.
>   > Message-ID: <Bzz9z8.1FD@Novell.COM>
>   > Date: 28 Dec 92 16:33:08 GMT
>   > Sender: usenet@Novell.COM (Usenet News)
>   > Organization: Novell, Inc.
>   > Lines: 14
>   > Nntp-Posting-Host: twosnjuk.test.npd.provo.novell.com
>   > 
>   > 
>   > Has anybody heard of POSIX?
>   > 
>   > Where can I get hold of a copy?
>   > 
>   > Thanks.
>   > 
>   > --
>   > 
>   > --------------------------------------------------------------------------
>   >     Tony Wosnjuk  (Vos - Nilk)
>   >     Novell Inc.     122 East 1700 South       Mail Stop D-13-2
>   >     Provo, Utah  84601    (801) 429-3458   (NeXT mail Welcome)
>   > --------------------------------------------------------------------------

I guess gives you some idea what Novell will do to UNIX !?!

-- rice
--
|                    H. Mike Rice    |    elf_______________________
| |  dsc9hmr@bumed10.med.navy.mil    |         Empowerment through
|_|_____    rice@access.digex.com    |             Education !
  |_______                           |______________________________
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: raj@cup.hp.com (Rick Jones)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 20:02:21 GMT
Distribution: alt
Organization: Hewlett-Packard
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1.4 PL6]

I heard this quote on the net and thought it sounded very thought provoking:

> >      For some time we have seen an opportunity to help unify and 
> > purify UNIX.  Increasingly customers around the world are using 
> > UNIX as an advanced network-oriented applications environment that 
> > is highly complementary to the distributed network services of the 
> > NetWare environment.

I particularly liked the word "purify..." :?

rick jones
these opinions are mine, all mine, HP probably wouldn't want them anyway:)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,misc.legal.software
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 16:22:07 GMT

usenet@crd.ge.com (Required for NNTP) writes:
>  I have a very narrow question about one legal point of the BSDI suit,
>which hopefully will not get drawn off into a tangent about economic or
>moral issues. My limited understanding of "trade secret" law leads me
>to believe that once the cat is out of the bag, it's out. Based on a
>single data point, I believe that if someone reveals a trade secret the
>original holder can take legal action against the party revealing the
>secret, but not against any future users of the information.

Not true. Trade secret law extends to those that acquire or disclose
trade secrets using improper means, or know that the information was
improperly acquired, OR SHOULD HAVE KNOWN. 

Thus, those that see "CONFIDENTIAL AND PROPRIETARY" on the top of a
listing may be liable if they acquire or disclose the trade secret.

>  I base this one the fact that every non-disclosure agreement I run
>past our lawyers agrees to keep the secret "unless the information shall
>become public by other means." When I asked about this some years ago, I
>was told that if the information got out it was unprotected except by
>secrecy.

Not quite accurate. One must determine how the information got out,
and determine if the potential defendant knew or should have known
that the trade secret was improperly acquired or disclosed. 
(or had any culpability in the misappropriation).

A majority of states have adopted the Uniform Trade Secret Act. Most
of the remaining states are still operating under the Restatement
of Torts (First) definition of trade secrets. There is little difference
between the two.

The Uniform Trade Secret Act allows damages and injunctive relief 
for misappropriation of trade secrets. A trade secret is defined as
information that 1) has value to its owner, and 2) it must be secret.
Misappropriation means either (a) "acquisition of a trade secret
of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the
trade secret was acquired by improper means ", or (b) "disclosure
or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied 
consent by a person who" essentially acquired it using improper
means.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: alt
Date: Fri, 25 Dec 1992 14:08:09 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)

>No, if your opponent crumples fast due to lack of financial ability to
>put up any fight you have no precedent, basically. You don't really
>think the court and precedent system is *that* stupid, do you? The
>form of the judgement would clearly mark that to anyone considering
>the precedent later and it would be discarded immediately. If this
>wasn't true we'd all be in big trouble, think of the broader
>implications of what you're claiming.

>That's one major reason why in criminal cases we provide free counsel
>if needed, so that the judgement has validity, as a related example.

Most lawyers citing cases have no idea of how vigorous the defense
was - so the judicial system really is that simple. One example that
is close to mind is Lotus v. Paperback Book. I don't think that Lotus
has collected anything yet on that judgment, but it served its purpose -
which became obvious when it was used in Lotus v. Borland. Also, it
is surprising how many otherwise intelligent attys cited that decision,
despite the great disparity in resources of the two parties.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 31 Dec 1992 21:41:53 GMT
Organization: Computer Engineering and Science, Case Western Reserve University
Distribution: alt
NNTP-Posting-Host: sentinel.ces.cwru.edu

In article <17759@umd5.umd.edu> mark@roissy.umd.edu (Mark Sienkiewicz) writes:
> I've been reading this group for a few months now, and I've seen lots of
> flameage, lots of discussions of various points of law, but no actual
> references to information about the suit.

You should have seen a number of people quoting from the complaint.  That
is because most of us have already obtained and read the USL complaints
against BSDI and UC Regents.  If you haven't yet, then I suggest you do so.

The documents are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.uu.net in the directory
/vendor/bsdi/usl.  They are also available from bsdi.com:/bsdi-info/usl.

Aydin Edguer
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 15:23:01 GMT

bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) writes:
>>So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
>>state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
>>it has no notice.

>Whether that's true or not under US law your ability to recover
>monetary damages under an unregistered copyright is almost nil. About
>all you can do is stop the other person from continuing to violate.

Well - I think that recovery on an unregistered copyright is even lower.
Registration is a jurisdictional matter - the federal courts cannot 
look at a U.S. copyright claim (with a few new Berne exceptions) 
unless it has been registered. (Of course, federal jurisdiction
in copyright matters is exclusive).

The question though is notice (or marking) - not registration.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: nagle@netcom.com (John Nagle)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 18:03:41 GMT

hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
>In article <1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> sef@Kithrup.COM (Sean Eric Fagan) writes:
>>In article <1ho25nINNm7n@usenet.INS.CWRU.Edu> edguer@ces.cwru.edu (Aydin Edguer) writes:
>>>So USL is claiming copyright violations.
>>
>>The 32V code that the university started out from was not copyrighted.
>>(No explicit copyright notice, and it was done before the US said that
>>things were automatically copyrighted.)
>>So they would probably lose a copyright charge.

       Original AT&T 32V tapes bore a copyright sticker on the reel.
When I first installed 4.1 BSD UNIX at Ford Aerospace, we had to licence
32V from AT&T.  This was a big undertaking in 1980 or thereabouts, requiring
lawyers on both sides to negotiate an agreement.  Eventually, I received
a contract embossed with the corporate seals of both Ford Motor and AT&T.
(There were some legal complications, because Ford and AT&T had a long-standing
cross-licensing agreement on technology.)  It was expensive, $40,000
as I recall, for our first source licence.  We paid.  It was worth it.

       Ford Aerospace's legal people then approved the Berkeley UNIX licence
agreement, which required that we have a source licence for 32V first.
AT&T delivered 32V, on several 1/2" tape reels bearing a copyright sticker.
I opened the box, admired the tapes, and put the box in a safe place.
They were never used except as a symbol that we had the right to use them.
DEC delivered the VAX 11/780, and I drove up to Berkeley, with copies of
the licences and blank tapes, and somebody in Bill Joy's group ran off a 
copy of 4.1BSD for me.  That part was free.

       So there were indeed copyright notices at the point one dealt
directly with AT&T for UNIX 32V.

       But that's not the issue. 32V was a simple port of the PDP-11
version of UNIX.  Berkeley did a major overhaul on the
kernel, eventually rewriting it completely.  All the networking code
is pure Berkeley.  Virtual memory in UNIX was a Berkeley innovation.
Sockets, psuedoteletypes, modern signal handing, "vi", "termcap", 
and job control were all Berkeley innovations.  Berkeley replaced the
abysmal scheduler that came from AT&T, added decent memory management,
and generally replaced most of the kernel algorithms.  But they did this
bit-by-bit over a decade, not in a "clean room" environment from the
specs.  (Clean room cloning hadn't been invented in 1980, remember.
The IBM PC only dates from 1980, strange as it seems now.)
Thus, they have copyright problems.  If you replace everything, is
it still a "derivative work"?

					John Nagle

					John Nagle
Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:697 comp.org.eff.talk:7974 comp.org.sug:551 comp.org.usenix:1127
From: jbuck@herschel.berkeley.edu (Joe Buck)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Date: 23 Dec 1992 06:09:51 GMT
Organization: U. C. Berkeley
Distribution: inet
NNTP-Posting-Host: herschel.berkeley.edu

In article <Bzp683.C2s@ccu.umanitoba.ca> thompsn@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Adam Thompson) writes:
>Sorry, Terry -- the code in Linux (TCP/IP stuff) was specifically written
>WITHOUT and Net/2 code, to avoid this problem.  The author's original
>beta announcement explicitly mentions the fact that he only glanced at the
>Net/2 code, and in fact wrote the TCP/IP support directly from the
>standards documents.  (Said documents are, to the best of my recall, a mix
>of RFCs and ISO standards...)

In any case, even if USL prevails I doubt if it would affect the status of
the TCP/IP code, since it was written under a DARPA contract requiring
that it be made public (I suppose that USL could try taking on Uncle Sam
next).  That code was released in the Networking-1 release (which was only
about 30% of the code for BSD, not 90% like Networking-2), which USL has
not challenged.





--
Joe Buck	jbuck@ohm.berkeley.edu
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: tenney@netcom.com (Glenn S. Tenney)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 06:28:13 GMT

In article <1992Dec29.063742.22155@hellgate.utah.edu> hollaar%basset.utah.edu@cs.utah.edu (Lee Hollaar) writes:
> ...
>The Copyright Act of 1976 changed all this.  "Copyright protection
> ...
>
>So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
>state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
>it has no notice.

But, Lee, since there was no way to copyright software back then,
how could that version be protectable by copyright at all?



-- 
Glenn Tenney
voice: (415) 574-3420      fax: (415) 574-0546
tenney@netcom.com          Ham radio: AA6ER
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Organization: The World
	<1ho55fINN731@ftp.UU.NET> <1992Dec29.063742.22155@hellgate.utah.edu>
	<bhayden.725648522@teal>
Distribution: inet
Date: Tue, 29 Dec 1992 19:06:13 GMT


>Well, not exactly. I do not think that you can say that just because
>it didn't have a notice that it is unpublished (if prior to the 
>1976 C/R Act). Publication is primarily a question of fact, with
>the court looking at how widely the work was distributed, and 
>how tightly the distribution was controlled.

As I remember all AT&T Unix source code after some (early) date had
the following notice attached (approximately):

	This file contains unpublished, proprietary source code...

So...

-- 
        -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,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 13:54:08 GMT

terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

>In article <scs.725032679@wotan.iti.org> scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons) writes:

>>If BSDI/Jolix (yes, I'm sure that Jolix is the next target) get a
>>full-functioned commercial-grade UNIX out there that interrupts
>>[revenue from UNIX licences I think Novell/USL will sue]

>	This, I believe, is hogwash... I don't think 386BSD will be targeted
>unless it contains USL sources like BSDI is purported to (not true of 386BSD
>in my opinion).

You wash your hogs and I'll wash mine :-).

Please read the claims from USL against UCB.  They can be read to say
that the BSD networking release contains USL code (whether copyright or
trade secret is hard to say, but they say it's theirs).  Thus if BSDI
is ruled contaminated *on those grounds*, Jolix is contaminated.  Period.

Note that BSDI could lose the suit on other grounds -- for example, the
judge could rule that the BSD networking release is neither trade
secret nor copyright.  But he could then say that the BSDI principals
used their knowledge of the trade-secret/copyright USL code to write
the missing modules, and therefore are in violation.  In that case, BSD
Net is free but the Jolix folks are under the same threat -- did they
use trade-secret/copyright USL code to write the missing modules?

Why hasn't USL sued the Jolitzes?  It is a reasonable strategy to pick
one target first, establish your case, then go on to the others.
Soderholm proved this works quite well with his token-ring suit against
IBM.
-- 
	"You can't get here from here."
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: bhayden@teal.csn.org (Bruce Hayden)
Subject: Re: BSDI lawsuit
Keywords: copyright, notice
Organization: Colorado SuperNet, Inc.
Distribution: inet
Date: Wed, 30 Dec 1992 14:58:10 GMT

terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:
>>
>>So, if 32V is an unpublished work, it is likely protected either under
>>state copyright law (if written prior to 1978) or federal law, even if
>>it has no notice.

>From Websters:
>] pub.lish \'p*b-lish\ \-*-b*l\ vb [ME publishen, modif. of MF publier, fr. L 
>]    publicare, fr. ]publicus 1a: to make generally known 1b: to make public 
>]    announcement of obs  2: ADVERTISE 3a: to place before the public : 
>]    DISSEMINATE 3b: to produce or release for publication; specif : PRINT 3c: 
>]    to issue the work of (an author) 1: to put out an edition 2: to have one's 
>]    work accepted for publication {a ~ing scholar} - pub.lish.able aj

>Was 32V published?  Under 1a, 3b(produce), and 3c.1, it seems an argument
>could be made.

Webster's definition is not relevant. Publication in this case is
a legal term of art, partly defined by the Copyright Act, and partly
defined by legal cases. The problem is that a "limited distribution"
is not considered a "publication". The distinction depends on how
widely the work was distributed, and how tightly the distribution
was controlled.

Bruce E. Hayden
(303) 758-8400
bhayden@csn.org

Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: The World
Distribution: alt
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 20:24:36 GMT


Just as a point of information: One of the contentious issues is
whether or not USL owns a copyright to the specific code in question
at all. That is far from clear and one of the things they are seeking
to get answered in court (well, USL thinks they have the answer of
course, but this will have to be examined and is open to challenge
given the facts.)

Although later versions of the Unix code were copyrighted, the 32v
version in question in this suit may have only had trade secret
status, at most. And even that is sorely in question.

There's a fine line to walk between claiming trade secret status, i.e.
not published at all (though of course you can disclose under contract
as was claimed, but disclosure and publication are very different
things), vs copyright, i.e., protected for the purpose of publication.
At the core of that issue is an inherent contradiction if presented
that way, and those are fundamental issues in the case.

So details of the copyright law and expiration of copyrights is
probably mostly irrelevant.

-- 
        -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,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.org.sug,comp.org.usenix
From: scs@iti.org (Steve Simmons)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Industrial Technology Institute
Distribution: alt
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 1992 13:57:59 GMT

gtoal@pizzabox.demon.co.uk (Graham Toal) writes:

>bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein) wrote: 
>>Announced today on the news, $350M, official announcement 2PM EST,
>>Unix is a trademark of Novell, Inc.

>Errr... big question: how will this affect the USL "IT'S UNIX" BSDI lawsuit?

IMHO, zero immediate effect.  Various shareholders must approve things,
lots of things must change hand, etc, etc.  Only when Novell actually
takes possession could they make changes.

But will they make changes?  Novell undoubtably knows what the revenue
stream from UNIX licences is.  If BSDI/Jolix (yes, I'm sure that Jolix
is the next target) get a full-functioned commercial-grade UNIX
out there that interrupts that license stream, that revenue will begin
to decline quickly.
-- 
	"You can't get here from here."
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.org.eff.talk
From: atkinson@itd.nrl.navy.mil (Randall Atkinson)
Subject: Re: Novell buys Unix Systems Laboratory
Organization: Naval Research Laboratory, DC
Distribution: alt
Date: Wed, 23 Dec 1992 14:01:32 GMT

In article <1992Dec23.033508.3126@fcom.cc.utah.edu> terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C) writes:

>	This, I believe, is hogwash... I don't think 386BSD will be targeted
>unless it contains USL sources like BSDI is purported to (not true of 386BSD
>in my opinion).

  BSDI and 386BSD are pretty darned close to identical, except in
about 10 kernel files and some device drivers.  There is no USL source
in BSDI.  Both BSDI and 386BSD are derived from BSD Net/2.  USL claims
property rights in all BSD Net/2 sources -- even those that UC
Berkeley felt were freely distributable to people without a UNIX
source license from AT&T.  BSDI contains no sources from Net/2 that UC
Berkeley felt were not publically distributable.  If BSDI is found to
infringe, 386BSD will automatically be found to infringe on the same
basis.

Xref: sparky alt.suit.att-bsdi:767 comp.org.eff.talk:8204 comp.org.sug:588 comp.org.usenix:1166