*BSD News Article 10563


Return to BSD News archive

Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
	id AA304 ; Sun, 31 Jan 93 14:02:08 EST
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd,alt.suit.att-bsdi
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!rtech!ingres!daveb
From: daveb@Ingres.COM (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Subject: Re: UC Berkeley Embroiled in Computer Software Lawsuit
Message-ID: <1993Jan29.200419.7285@pony.Ingres.COM>
Followup-To: alt.suit.att-bsdi
Originator: daveb@lotus
In-reply-to: gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert)
Reply-To: daveb@lotus (Dave Brower, DBMS hack, [510] 748-3418)
Organization: Ingres, an ASK Company
References: <1993Jan26.221218.8133@igor.tamri.com> <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com> <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu>
Date: 29 Jan 93 20:04:18 GMT
Lines: 57

John Bass notes that there may be some copyright and/or trade secret
problems in the Net2 code caused by what appear to be "cut, paste, and
delete" operations.  These may be very significant, and I'm in no
position to form an opinion based on the facts or the law.

However, he does drag in a few other points that are much more
debatable.  One is a claim of infringement on the Bach book, and the
other is a claim of plagiarism.

I'd like to believe the claim based on Bach is a non-issue.  As you
can't copyright ideas, only code, and there is only pseudo-code in
Bach, I don't see any way any there can be infringement on Bach in the
Net2 source.  Indeed, I don't see any way to infringe Bach in a real
set of _any_ source unless you copy him word for word in comments.

As to "plagiarism", I submit this is also a straw-argument without
bearing on the BSDI or Net2 release.  Plagiarism is an issue of
academic morality, and has _nothing_ to do with business arrangements,
copyright, or trade-secret law.  BSDI and Net2 are not academic
vehicles, and considering them as such is facetious.

Considering the moral side of plagiarism, there is a strong argument
that any Software Engineer who, within the scope of binding copyright
and trade-secret regulation, doesn't borrow and reuse the ideas of
existing working systems is a fool.  The legal distinctions are in
where the borrowing and use falls with respect to the copyrights,
trade-secret protection, and patent interest.

Thus the major issue regarding Net2 and the suit are the factual
claims that some files in Net2 violate the copyright of V32, or any
valid trade-secret restrictions not made moot by Bach and other open
literature.  AT&T has not yet released the details of the points of
claim, so for now we can only offer conjecture about the merits.

It's far from clear to me how copyright could, would or should be
applied to non-functional code fragments like those cited by Bass.
It's further not clear to me that the "structure and naming" claim
could/would/should be enforceable, as it seems very close to the murky
"look-n-feel" debate.

It _is_ clear that the CSRG is/was playing intentionally close to the
line, and that reasonable people can disagree where they landed.  The
final ruling will happen in court or in a settlement.  It won't be in
the court of public or net opinion.

It's disingeuous to pull Bach and plagiarism into the public
discussion about the legality.  Bach isn't part of the complaint, and
plagiarism isn't a legal issue.

I'd like to think we all regret it's down to lawyers arguing.  

cheers,
-dB

-- 
Windows/NT - the VMS of the 90s