Return to BSD News archive
Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!europa.asd.contel.com!darwin.sura.net!mips!odin!sgihub!sgitokyo!kandall From: kandall@nsg.sgi.com (Michael Kandall) Subject: Re: UNIGRAM's article on the USL-BSDI suit In-Reply-To: jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk's message of 3 Aug 92 16: 39:10 GMT Message-ID: <KANDALL.92Aug4161214@globalize.nsg.sgi.com> Sender: news@nsg.sgi.com (Net News) Organization: Nihon Silicon Graphics, Japan References: <45961@shamash.cdc.com> <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov> <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> <7045@skye.ed.ac.uk> Date: Tue, 4 Aug 1992 21:12:14 GMT Lines: 66 >>>>> On 3 Aug 92 16:39:10 GMT, jeff@aiai.ed.ac.uk (Jeff Dalton) said: Jeff> In article <1992Aug3.143259.23897@crd.ge.com> davidsen@crd.ge.com (bill davidsen) writes: >In article <25138@dog.ee.lbl.gov>, torek@horse.ee.lbl.gov (Chris Torek) writes: Jeff> If USL has any evidence that code was copied, they should be able Jeff> to say what code it was. For some reason, they don't seem to want Jeff> to do this. The issue may be more than copyright. I believe the software license which UCB signed with AT&T, now USL, requires them to protect the intellectual property beyond just the simple copyright. Doesn't the license signed by UCB require them to protect ``ideas, concepts and techniques'' or something vague like that? The copyright notice at the top of each file is not the only thing protecting the technology. > It seems to me that a lot of people want something for nothing, and >dislike AT&T/USL for trying to profit from their UNIX software. Chris is right. There is a wide-spread perception that ``UNIX'' -- trademark, code, interfaces, ideas -- is public property. And some of it (interfaces and ideas) may very well be. Jeff> I don't mind USL profiting. What I mind is their trying to prevent Jeff> other people from using non-AT&T and non-USL code written at Berkeley Jeff> (and elsewhere). Its not just code. Its an entire system: designs, specs and maybe parts of the implementation, lifted from USL property. Whether it is legally possible to protect such things as general as implementation ideas is a separate question. Independent of the legal issues, it is clear to me that the BSDI people have taken their ideas from USL's UNIX System. Where do you think they learned to write UNIX-like, mu, mt operating systems? They weren't born like that. They looked at the real UNIX code, used the ideas, and wrote their own. Whether the legal system combined with the USL Software Agreement protect those ideas is a different issue. I find this (legal, or not) ``stealing'' of ideas reprehensible. It is also contrary to the spirit of Open Systems. As a company, what incentive do I have to invest person-years of time, money and collected expertise, designing and specifying a technology which I will license to other parties, if those other parties can: license my stuff for a couple years study my implementation and techniques copy my ideas and implementation (changing the actual code) cut me out of the picture That does not give me a whole lot of incentive for further investment in the development of products for open licensing. The BSDI people chant the litany of how they are the champions of open systems, but they are the ones spoiling open systems for everyone. Jeff> What's this about "rewriting individual routines"? Jeff> I hope you don't want to suggest that if someone has a copyrighted Jeff> (or otherwise protectec) compression routine no one can write _any_ Jeff> compression algorithm because that would be rewriting a routine. It was recently explained to me (I am no expert on this stuff) that this would be about software patents, not copyrights. And, yes, patented techniques cannot be used freely. Mike ---- (Just my personal opinions ...)