Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP
id AA495 ; Wed, 03 Feb 93 19:01:42 EST
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!caen!hellgate.utah.edu!fcom.cc.utah.edu!cs.weber.edu!terry
From: terry@cs.weber.edu (A Wizard of Earth C)
Subject: Re: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 2 (opening arguments)
Message-ID: <1993Feb3.051449.26847@fcom.cc.utah.edu>
Sender: news@fcom.cc.utah.edu
Organization: Weber State University (Ogden, UT)
References: <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com> <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu> <1993Feb3.002534.5637@igor.tamri.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 05:14:49 GMT
Lines: 203
I need to start this with the disclaimer that I do not have any personal
enmity against Mr. Bass; I simply disagree with his logic and the false
conclusions it leads him to.
Most of this is related to the use of incorrect axioms (fallacies). I have
accepted as axioms for the purposes of discussion points on which he and I
agree but for which neither of us offers proof.
In the following I will attempt to discern the problems I have with Mr. Bass'
arguments:
In article <1993Feb3.002534.5637@igor.tamri.com>
jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes:
>Taken from "Numerical recipes in C", copyright Cambridge University Press
>1988, preface page xv, which is a book of algorithms and they address the
>issue of use carefully:
[ ... ]
> "Copyright does not protect ideas, but only the expression of those
***^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ideas in a particular form. In the case of a computer program, the
> ideas consist of the programs's methodology and algorithm, including
**************** ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the sequence of processes adopted by the programmer. The expression
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> ideas is the program source code and it's derived object code.
[ ... ]
>Sentence two accurately represents "ownership" under current case law,
>"methodology, algorithms, and sequence of processes". To translate the
>methodology, algorithms, and sequence of processes into any other form
>does not change the ownership. This means between puesdo code, english,
>C, or any other languague - human or machine readable.
This is clearly false if we accept your sources and definitions:
<ideas> :== methodology, algorithms, and sequence of processes
<expression> :== the program source code and it's derived object code
<axiom1> :== Copyright does not protect <ideas>, but only the
<expression> of those <ideas> in a particular form.
<axiom2> :== <ideas> can not be owned.
<axiom3> :== <expression> can be owned.
<fallacy1> :== <ideas> == <expression> (<axiom2> == !<axiom3>)
<Fconclusion1> :== To translate the methodology, algorithms, and
sequence of processes into any other form does
not change the ownership.
<Fconclusion1'> :== To translate the <ideas> into any other form does
not change the ownership.
<Fconclusion2> :== This means [translation] between puesdo code,
english, C, or any other languague - human or
machine readable.
The first false conclusion, <Fconclusion1>, is false because it requires
<fallacy1> to be true. <Fconclusion1'> is a restatement of <Fconclusion1>
in terms of our definitions.
The second false conclusion, <Fconclusion2>, is false because it requires
<Fconclusion1> as a necessary condition (the implication being that it is
a restatement of <Fconclusion1>: "This means ...".
[ ... ]
>I will later show that Net-2 and 386BSD release by UCB violates the
>AT&T ownership by maintaining the same "methodology, algorithms and
>sequence of processes" in nearly all of the code cloned from both
>UNIX source and Bach puedocode.
<axiom4> :== UCB [ ... cloned code ... ] from Bach puedocode.
<fallacy2> :== UCB [ ... cloned code ... ] from [ AT&T ] UNIX source
<fallacy3> :== <axiom4> && <fallacy2>
<Fconclusion3> :== UCB violates the AT&T ownership by maintaining the
same <ideas> in nearly all of the code cloned from
both UNIX source and Bach puedocode.
<Fconclusion3'> :== <fallacy3> *therefore* UCB violates the AT&T
ownership of <ideas>.
The second fallacy, <fallacy2>, is false because it is unproven and I do
not accept it as an axiom without proof.
The third false conclusion, <Fconclusion3>, is false because it has an
unproven assumption, <fallacy2>, as a major premise. It requires AT&T
ownersip of <ideas> (!<axiom2> && <Fconclusion2>) as a necessary conditions.
Even were you to prove <fallacy2>, <Fconclusion2> would continue to make
your argument false.
>In turn, this will show that UCB both violates the AT&T Source License
>agreement and the Bach copyright, including any possible fair-use. In
>addition it will be shown that UCB directly used the AT&T design, both
>source code and Bach, without crediting the source of the "methodology,
>algorithms, and sequence of processes" - which is blatantly simple
>plagiarizm by any definition in the research community.
<fallacy4> :== AT&T Source License agreement ... including any
possible fair-use.
<fallacy5> :== UCB directly used the AT&T design, both source code
and Bach
<partial1> :== without crediting the source of the <ideas>
<fallacy6> :== <fallacy5> <partial1>
<fallacy7> :== Plagarism is a criminal offense.
<axiom5> :== [use] <partial1>
<Fconclusion4> :== In turn, this [argument] will show that UCB both
violates the AT&T Source License agreement and the
Bach copyright, including any possible fair-use.
<Fconclusion4'> :== <Fconclusion3> will show (UCB violates Bach copyright
including any possible fair-use) && <fallacy4>
<Fconclusion5> :== In addition it will be shown [by this argument] that
UCB directly used the AT&T design, both [AT&T UNIX]
source code and Bach, without crediting the source
of the "methodology, algorithms, and sequence of
processes"
<Fconclusion5'> :== <Fconclusion3> will show <fallacy5> <partial1>
<Fconclusion6> :== UCB is guilty of plagarism.
<Fconclusion6'> :== <Fconclusion5> therefore UCB is guilty of Plagarism.
The fourth fallacy, <fallacy4>, is a fallacy because it requires
<Fconclusion4> to be true and because it requires fair use to apply to the
AT&T source license. In any case, the relationship between <fallacy4> and
<Fconclusion4> is circumstantial and does not bear scrutiny.
The fifth fallacy, <fallacy5>, is false because it is unproven and I do
not accept it as an axiom without proof.
The sixth fallacy, <fallacy6>, is obviously false if we accept Samuel J.
Leffler, Marshall Kirk McKusick, Michael J. Karels, and John S. Quartermain
as representative of UCB and refer to the references at the end of "PART 1:
Overview" in:
The Design and implementation of the 4.3 BSD UNIX operating/
system by Samuel J. Leffler ... [et al.].
p. cm
Includes bibliographies and index.
ISBN 0-201-06196-1
1. UNIX (Computer operating system) I. Leffler, Samuel J.
QA76.76.063D474 1988
005.4'3--dc19 88-22809
CIP
Which credits AT&T SVID, Bach's book, and 39 other sources. Additional
references are provided at the end of each chapter.
The Seventh fallacy, <fallacy7>, is provably false and has been accepted
as such by Mr. Bass in a previous posting. Nobody is legally required to
be "nice". However, given (<fallacy5> && <fallacy6>), clearly a great
deal needs to be proven before <fallacy7> can be said to be true.
The fourth false conclusion, <Fconclusion4>, is false because <Fconclusion3>
is a necessary condition.
The fifth false conclusion, <Fconclusion5>, is false because it requires
<Fconclusion3> as a necessary condition.
The sixth false conclusion, <Fconclusion6>, is false because it depends on
<Fconclusion5> as a necessary condition. It also depends on <fallacy7>
being true, wherein plagarism is a griminal offense enabling one to be
"guilty" of it. An offense is required for guilt. Even if this were not
the case, proof of guilt would have to be offered in support of the statement.
>*** In the mean time, I urge readers to review the above, find your own
>copy of Bach and examine the clock, tty and bio code in 386BSD. ****
I have done so, and have not reached your conclusion on the charges leveled
by USL. Although there is a prima facia similarity in kern_clock.c and
Bach's algorithm in figure 8.9, the argument that this is a translation
of the idea isn't supportable from the arrangement of the code; even so,
use of the idea does not constitute infringement according to your sources.
In any case:
>In naming UCB in the BSDI suit, USL did not ask for damages from
>UCB, just a simple acknowledgement that UCB violated AT&T/USL rights.
>AT&T/USL could have, and may yet, get mad enough at UCB to ask
>for damages.
386BSD is not at issue here, being neither 100% inclusive of Net/2 nor
a product of BSDI.
Next volley, please.
PS: Just because you're wrong doesn't mean we don't like you. 8-).
Regards,
Terry Lambert
terry@icarus.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I have an 8 user poetic license" - me
Get the 386bsd FAQ from agate.berkeley.edu:/pub/386BSD/386bsd-0.1/unofficial
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------