Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!darwin.sura.net!wupost!psuvax1!ehrlich From: ehrlich@cs.psu.edu (Dan Ehrlich) Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd Subject: Re: AT&T vs. BSDI --> 4.3BSD-NET2 distribution requires AT&T license!!! Message-ID: <Bs9nLo.I2n@cs.psu.edu> Date: 31 Jul 92 19:34:31 GMT References: <l6rld6INN3dh@neuro.usc.edu> <1992Jul28.060822.29603@serveme.chi.il.us> Sender: news@cs.psu.edu (Usenet) Organization: Computer Science Department, Penn State University Lines: 54 In-Reply-To: joeg@gagme's message of 28 Jul 92 06:08:22 GMT Nntp-Posting-Host: daneel.cs.psu.edu All statemnets and opinions expressed herein are my own and DO NOT reflect the opinions of my employer. Just wanted to add my two cents to this discussion. I am not an attorney, so do not assume that anything I am about to write is correct. Also, don't loose sight of the fact that USL(tm)/AT&T(tm) is a "for profit" corporation. And that if you do not "vigorously" defend your trademarks you loose your rights to them. "Aspirin" was once a Bayer trademark. While USL/AT&T is appeartently making trademark infringement and unfair competition the center piece of the suit against BSDI, it seems to me that the real crux of the matter will be the definition of the term "derived work" as it relates to a copyright. In the past I have been told that any "derived work" is, by law, the sole property of the copyright holder. If USL/AT&T can prove in court that the NET-2 code is a "derived work" from previous copyrighted USL/AT&T code then they will (unfortunately) prevail in their suit. If USL/AT&T can convince a court that NET-2 is a "derived work" the implications are unfathomable. Would this mean that any code in NET-2 would now require USL/AT&T licenses? Would Van Jacobsen's TCP/IP code then require a license? What would all of those companies that have built router's, bridges, or gateways based on Van's code do? What about Henery Spencer's regualr exspression routines? Software development would quickly come to a halt. Richard Stallman is right when he says that software copyrights are evil. This lawsuit is a good example. If USL/AT&T should prevail then no one who has been through a computer science curriculum in the last 15 years will be able to do operating system development. If USL/AT&T prevails then programmers and software development houses in any country that is a signatory to the international copyright treaties could also be required to tithe to USL/AT&T. It's time to dig out those "Keep Your Lawyers Off My Computer" buttons and replace the multi-colored Apple(tm) logo that is the snake's head with the DeathStar(tm). Well, I seem to have started ranting, so it must be time to step down from the soapbox and let the next speaker up. AT&T is a trademark of the American Telephone and Telegraph Company. UNIX is a trademark of UNIX Systems Labratories. USL is probably a wholly owned subsidiary of AT&T. Apple is a trademark of Apple Computer. DeathStar is probably a trademark or service mark of George Lucas. -- Dan Ehrlich - Sr. Systems Programmer - Penn State Computer Science "Universities should be safe havens where ruthless examination of realities will not be distorted by the aim to please or inhibited by the risk of displeasure." - Kingman Brewster