Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA592 ; Fri, 05 Feb 93 17:00:11 EST Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!igor!jbass From: jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 4 (copyright & derived works) Message-ID: <1993Feb3.175211.13214@igor.tamri.com> Organization: DMS Design References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com> <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: Wed, 3 Feb 93 17:52:11 GMT Lines: 67 In regard to derived works, standards from other parts of the publishing industries need to be examined. Take music for example. If we have a well known piece, like "Jingle Bells" and someone comes along with a tune that sounds just like it ... IE has the same rhythm and melody .... then we without question would call it a rendition of "Jingle Bells", no matter how much the author claims it to be a new piece ... even if EVERY note, EVERY chord, and every other technical description is different from the original. No matter how much the author whines, we presume that he heard it atleast once and his song was derived from the original melody. To play the song and with a striaght face call it original is plagiarizm. To play the song and introduce it as your rendition of the original is called creativity. If the original author or publisher still retains a valid copyright, then you may be able to play the tune to yourself in the privacy of your home, but to play it in public would be illegal unless you obtain the right to do so from the copyright holder. This is the context on how to apply the scrutiny of "methodology and algorithms, including the sequence of processes adopted by the programmer" to works that are suspected of derivation. For those of you with source access, review stand & boot with this frame of mind ... nearly every line of code is different (notes & chords), but the basic design and structure (melody) remains the same. Now start reviewing other code segments of 386BSD, for we will be appling this tests over and over. In the academic and research community, plagiarizm is a serious issue. At some point, UCB is going to have to come to grips with it and the wrongs inflicted on AT&T by their actions. In this case the widely public release of a closely derived work is nearly irrevocable. Even if every copy of 386BSD is removed from every archive site, the private copies will continue to be pirated for years. I present the following compromise: 1) UCB official acknowledge the plagiarizm and violation of AT&T's right of authorship. UCB would cease any further UNIX related development developments, and would be forever banned from doing so. UCB individuals involved would be formally reprimanded using existing university guidelines for plagiarizm. 2) The "internet/usenet community" remove all copies of 386BSD from all archives. Bill & Lynn Jolitz will cease any further 386BSD development. 3) BSDI principles will cease any further 386BSD related development and disband. 4) AT&T in return would provide a new low cost source license for UNIX V7/32V with source redistribution rights. Fee's would be on the order of $1,000 for the source redistribution license, and $50 per copy reproduced. Distribution format would be limited to CD-ROM's with serial numbers. Existing derivations of 386BSD, with the inclusion of notice of ownership by AT&T/USL, would be re-distributable under this source license. Anyone publishing under this license will be required to make ALL derived sources for any binaries distributed available. While I don't think this is a heavy enough punishment for the individuals involved, I do think the compromise is fair to everyone involved. Everyone involved gets a slap on the hand, and AT&T with the support of the community gains a revenue stream in exchange for making this older sources base widely available for home users and students. John Bass DMS Design