Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5524 comp.unix.bsd:16276 comp.sys.novell:68927
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!olivea!rahul.net!a2i!news.clark.net!news.sprintlink.net!cs.utexas.edu!news.cs.utah.edu!news.provo.novell.com!park.uvsc.edu!usenet
From: Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu>
Newsgroups: comp.os.386bsd.misc,comp.unix.bsd,comp.sys.novell
Subject: Re: Put the Cannons Away: Vote YES on newsgroup reformation.
Date: 15 Feb 1995 18:23:46 GMT
Organization: Utah Valley State College, Orem, Utah
Lines: 149
Message-ID: <3htgri$jbc@park.uvsc.edu>
References: <D3o5Ew.8x2@nbn.com> <3hdu9u$rhm@park.uvsc.edu> <3hegvm$plp@agate.berkeley.edu> <hm.792410152@hcswork.hcs.de> <3hhlk1$fc9@agate.berkeley.edu> <3hjmsn$p7b@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792586335@fedora.x.org> <3ho9kj$p9@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792707623@exalt> <3hs0f1$crd@park.uvsc.edu> <kaleb.792846319@fedora.x.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: hecate.artisoft.com
kaleb@fedora.x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) wrote:
] >OK, since I'm one of the people who thinks this is important:
]
] >Do you think Novell would be required under "Due Dilligence" to
] >pursue redress against Usenet news providers infringement on its
] >UNIX trademark once undeniably informed of said infringement?
]
] >Say by you sending Novell General Counsel a registered letter?
]
] What motivation do you think I would have for doing that? You seem to
] be far more motivated than I am.
Your claim that "The Usenet Cabal" forced you to name the groups
the way you did by refusing to post the RFD for you (in violation
of the group charter, if this really happened; the charter does not
allow the moderator to dictate content) would be one motivation.
If "The Usenet Cabal" were at fault rather than you pursuing your
own agenda, then this would give you leverage over them.
Personally, I find it incredulous that this could have happened
the way you claim.
] Why aren't you willing to write the letter yourself?
[ ... ]
] >Send the letter and tell me how much and where to send your money
] >order to pay bay your postage.
]
] Why are you defending Novell's trademark?
I'm not; I'm arguing that there is risk that Novell might do so,
retargeting the BSD folks to do it.
] Do you have some kind of vested interest in Novell? Are you on
] Novell's payroll?
Until recently, yes, I was on Novell's payroll. This does not
mean my postings constitute a defense of Novell; they are a
proactive defense of *BSD.
You agreed that Novell might vigorously pursue any use of their
trademark. Naming the goups with "unix" invites trouble.
] Do you own Novell stock? If you want to see Novell defend its
] trademark against adverse usage or dilution then I think you,
] as a diligent employee or as a concerned stockholder, should
] be willing to take the steps you've outlined above. I'd could
] do it for you but my philanthropy has run out and you can't
] afford my rates.
Your philanthropy was supposed to be limited in our use of it to
you sheparding the RFD and the CFV. You have done that, and I
haven't taken you to task for it. I have no problem with the job
you have done.
What I *am* taking you to task for is electioneering. Jesus said
to vote "no" for largely vacuous reasons, although there was a
kernel of truth in one or two of them. You responded with an
attack on the less credible parts of his post and a call to vote
"yes". Left at that, what you had done was knock down a strawman
that Jesus had (presumably unintentionally) set up for you.
Seeing that a logical fallacy was being perpetrated, I had no
choice but to engage in electioneering to combat yours, which was
largely based on the false cause argument that because Jesus was
wrong on some points, that you are right on all points. You are
not.
Once the restatement of positions had taken place, I was happy to
let it drop, but it was *YOU* who continued to put forth argument
favoring a particular outcome, rather than letting it simply be
voted upon.
If anyone has imposed on your largesse, it is *YOU*, yourself.
If you will simply let the thing drop and *vote* on the damn thing,
we can be done with it.
] >I suspect that if push came to shove, Novell would either grant
] >license or issue cease and desist letters, similar to those sent
] >to Jordan Hubbard and others who were distributing 386BSD derived
] >code. Which would actually happen would depend on whether they
] >felt their trademark was being diluted.
]
] Who would they grant the license to? Certainly not to me! Usenet
] doesn't even exist as any kind of legal entity. Jordan Hubbard was
] "selling" something. I'm not selling anything. Usenet isn't selling
] anything, except possibly information; information that Novell doesn't
] own, and therefore isn't entitled to grant a license for.
How about NetCOM, UUNET, and PSI?
While usenet does not exist as a legal entity, access to it is sold
by these companies, and their carrying of particular groups could
easily be interpreted as an endorsement.
Jordan wasn't selling something, Jordan was simply listed in the
'readme' file. Everyone so listed got a letter.
] >At the very least, we'd solve this thing in a hurry. Either they
] >will allow it (and I'll shut up) or they will deny it (and "The
] >Usenet Cabal" will at least shut up or at most be doing some
] >hasty renaming).
]
] Why don't you suggest to the Usenet Cabal that they send the letter?
] FWIW, the Usenet Cabal have indicated, presumably after consulting with
] their own legal counsel, that they don't see it as an issue. If they
] didn't consult an attorney, well, that's not really my concern, is it?
How about "because I believe your references to 'The Usenet Cabal'
to be groundless and without merit"? How about "because I believe
that they (if they even exist) are simply being used as a stick"?
] We've digressed far more than I ever intended. I don't know why I've
] let myself be lead down this rathole. If you're adamant, as Terry is,
] that there shouldn't be "unix" in the name, then I fully expect to see
] someone post an RFD in the *very* near future with a proposal to move
] all the comp.unix groups to comp.os equivalents, because we wouldn't
] want Novell's trademark to be diluted, would we? On the other hand, if
] you use one of FreeBSD, NetBSD, 386BSD, or BSD/OS, and want there to
] be a newsgroup with that name in it, you should vote yes on the proposal.
Fine. Quit electioneering and start counting votes. My offer
stands to pay registered mail postage (return receipt requested)
for a letter to Novell's general counsel. I now open up the offer
to the first person or organization who wants to involve them by
our choice now instead of by their choice later. Payment to be
rendered by money order on receipt of a photo copy of the return
receipt (I will include postage to me for the receipt copy plus
5 cents for the copy).
The lack of someone stepping forward to "bell the cat" could easily
be taken as indicating a reluctance to step on Novell's tail --
exactly the reason the proposed naming was argued against in the
first place.
Terry Lambert
terry@cs.weber.edu
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.