Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!ames!agate!dog.ee.lbl.gov!horse.ee.lbl.gov!torek
From: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit
Message-ID: <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>
Date: 1 Aug 92 21:20:07 GMT
References: <1992Aug1.020513.14170@plts.uucp> <1992Aug1.042344.23428@pasteur.Berkeley.EDU> <leb.712651912@Hypatia> <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> <45961@shamash.cdc.com>
Reply-To: torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek)
Organization: Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory, Berkeley
Lines: 155
NNTP-Posting-Host: 128.3.112.15
UNIGRAM's article is heavily slanted, badly written, and insufficiently
researched. Let me point out a few highlights:
>Last Tuesday or Wednesday the traffic on UUNet over this BSDI
>suit (see front page) got so heavy the protesters formed their
>own group (alt.suit.att-bsdi).... The group, reminiscent of the
>old drug-happy hippy-freak Unix culture that was so enamoured of
>free software....
Note that they have avoided slander by saying "reminiscent of" and not
identifying any specific person as part of the "old drug-happy
hippy-freak Unix culture". Personally, I like to think of myself as
part of the "Unix culture", and I can state categorically that I have
never used an illegal drug. (Not even Bill Clinton can say that!)
(Yes, I have never used marijuana, LSD, cocaine, etc., etc. I *have*
tried some of the legal drugs---specifically beer, wine, and tobacco
---and decided not to use any of those either. I know this makes me a
"freak" in today's culture, but hardly one of the "drug-happy
hippy-freak" variety. [I have been known to eat large quantities
of chocolate, however :-) .])
I believe UNIGRAM owe the "Unix culture" an apology for this remark.
Anyway:
>BSDI's response to the amended suit, which was served last
>Thursday, was to declare it "totally without merit" and "another
>step in [USL's] harassment campaign." ...
Note their own claim: "amended suit ... served last Thursday". Yet
not much later:
>... BSDI, meanwhile, is attempting to try the case in the court of
>public opinion. The week before last it put the full text of the
>initial complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet ostensibly
>because so many were asking to see the exact wording. ...
Note their implications: (a) BSDI is "hiding" the expanded suit;
(b) BSDI has some ulterior motive. How could they possible put the
text of the expanded suit on UUNET *before* they received it ("week
before last")?
>According to USL, the school effectively rejected a proposal for a full
>comparison of Berkeley versus USL code by unbiased third parties ...
>Had that proposal been acted on, McKusick, CSRG senior programmer
>and past president of Usenix, would have found himself in another
>conflict of interests since he is believed to be a secret a
>director of BSDI.
(I believe I have joined `that proposal' correctly with its antecedent.
There is a paragraph break across my elision, making this unclear.
UNIGRAM's story is not only slanted, it is poorly-written.)
The first quote is valid journalism: "USL claims that UC Berkeley did
X". The second is a conclusion, and as far as I can tell an invalid
one. Were McKusick a "secret .. director of BSDI", where is the
conflict of interest? If the comparison were by an unbiased third
party, how would McKusick's preferences come into play? And as another
example of slanting, note the unsubstantiated implication that McKusick
has "found himself in [previous] conflict[s] of interests". If this is
true, UNIGRAM should back it up; if false, UNIGRAM are treading on thin
ice.
>... Another director is Don Seeley, an employee of UUNet Technologies,
>the supplier of UUNet.
(Actually, his name is "Donn", not "Don", and I believe he is a BSDI
employee, not a UUNET employee. This is not an example of slant but
is one of insufficient investigation---although I suppose "Don" could
be a typographic error.)
>Clearly USL will argue that CSRG staff gave themselves permission
>to commercialise the system and will doubtless note a violation of
>the university's established code of ethics which requires university
>personnel with a financial interest in a university decision to
>disqualify themselves.
This is sheer speculation. USL may or may not argue this. More
important, however, is the implication that there *is* a "violation of
the university's established code of ethics". This alleged violation
appears to be that CSRG "gave themselves permission to commercialise
the system"---but were CSRG members suddenly to decide to sell Berkeley
software, they would not have to give themselves "permission". The
Berkeley license has, since 1981 if not earlier, ALWAYS given
permission for others, including corporations, to do anything they want
with UC Berkeley software, including sell it, as long as the Unversity
of California is properly acknowledged.
>BSDI, meanwhile, is attempting to try the case in the court of public
>opinion. The week before last it put the full text of the initial
>complaint (but not the expanded suit) on UUNet ostensibly because
>so many were asking to see the exact wording.
I have repeated this here (in its original placement) because I believe
this placement is contrived to obscure the fact that the expanded suit
was not available, and thus could not possibly have been put on UUNET,
at that time. UNIGRAM is attempting to imply that BSDI is somehow
being underhanded in disclosing the text of the initial complaint.
[The following is presumably the text on "page four"]
>The week before last, BSDI put the full text of Unix System Labs'
>initial complaint ... ostensibly because ...
Again, note the implication about ulterior motives: an unsubstantiated
allegation, hardly unbiased journalism.
>As might be expected, the move has stirred up a hornet's nest of
>academic fear and loathing against USL
A colorful phrase, but not inaccurate---even the worst reporting can
be partly right. :-)
>and has created a cadre of naive tech weinees ready to form a
>lynch mob. For all their thousands of lines of protests, however,
>no one has flat out denied USL's intellectual property rights.
As others have noted (see References), this is false. In fact, UCB
and BSDI have denied it as well---this is what the suit is *about*!
Calling people `naive tech weinees' is at best unkind, and uncalled-for.
In article <leb.712651912@Hypatia> leb@Hypatia.gsfc.nasa.gov (Lee E. Brotzman)
writes:
>I can't blame [USL] for trying to enforce their so-called rights to the
>license agreements that were signed by the UC Regents (and every other
>commercial vendor, as reported in this newsgroup). That's what the
>courts are for.
Quite so. Note that the alleged second suit---I have not seen it, so
I have to refer to it this way to be accurate---is supposed to contain
specific claims, which, as the BSDI lawyers noted earlier, are needed
in order for the suit to stand up in court.
In article <3YWHI6A@taronga.com> peter@taronga.com (Peter da Silva) writes:
[from the suit]
>>According to USL, the school effectively rejected a proposal for a full
>>comparison of Berkeley versus USL code by unbiased third parties
>Didn't the school used to run their code by AT&T before releasing it,
>and it was AT&T who shut down this department?
I believe this is correct, although it may have been USL rather than
AT&T. Note that neither AT&T nor USL is an "unbiased third party", so
this does not make UNIGRAM's statement false---just misleading. In
this case, however, UNIGRAM is not at fault: they are only quoting
USL. It is possible, corporations and public relations people being
what they are, that the USL spokesperson(s) were unaware of this.
In any case, I claim that UNIGRAM's article is bad journalism. They
should either stick to reporting the various claims and counterclaims
or substantiate their allegations, rather than engaging in idle,
slanted, and/or inflammatory speculation.
--
In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Lawrence Berkeley Lab CSE/EE (+1 510 486 5427)
Berkeley, CA Domain: torek@ee.lbl.gov