Return to BSD News archive
Received: by minnie.vk1xwt.ampr.org with NNTP id AA493 ; Wed, 03 Feb 93 19:01:36 EST Newsgroups: alt.suit.att-bsdi,comp.unix.bsd Path: sserve!manuel.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!sgiblab!spool.mu.edu!agate!ames!sgi!igor!jbass From: jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) Subject: George William Herbert's Challenge - Part 1 (Attn: AT&T/USL) Message-ID: <1993Feb2.224922.23644@igor.tamri.com> Organization: DMS Design References: <106742@netnews.upenn.edu> <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com> <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 2 Feb 93 22:49:22 GMT Lines: 102 In article <1kbtpf$e9h@agate.berkeley.edu> gwh@soda.berkeley.edu (George William Herbert) writes: >In article <1993Jan27.215738.12384@igor.tamri.com> jbass@igor.tamri.com (John Bass) writes: >>I picked 3 of the many postings and letters to respond to. If this doesn't >>get the point across we will have to start the trial here by taking each >>and every source module and picking it apart until people get the idea >>that Berkeley screwed up big time. > >Please do so. I'm not going to be personally satisfied until >I see this sort of evidence, and lacking any access to AT&T source, >I can't do it myself. Ok ... here goes a series of postings over the next couple weeks or so, but first I need to respond to a few preliminary jabs ... >>Unfortunately, it appears that most the respondants are to young to have >>any actual memory of the events first hand ... and are just parroting >>the folklore they have learned. > >Ad homoneim, John. Stick to either facts or philosophy of intellectual >protection. This unfortunately is simple fact ... 90% of the postings in support of UCB contain serious mis-representations of either fact and/or history. You strongly support UCB and claim they have done no wrong ... but then attempt to claim "lacking any access to AT&T source, I can't do it (prove UCB justified) myself". Testimony presenting evidence requires first hand knowledge, not hearsay. Anyone doing a followup posting to the following chain of postings should clearly state their credentials so that our network jury can separate and weigh the testimony and evidence to be presented in the postings which follow. Clearly state your: 1) name 2) Age 3) Formal Training 4) Industry experience 5) degree of UNIX source code knowledge 6) degree of BACH textbook knowledge My Name is John Bass, I'm 41 and hold a degree in Computer Science from CalPoly State Univ, San Luis Obispo, California. I have been working in the industry since 1968 and have been doing UNIX systems programming since 1975. I have done two UNIX cross architecture ports of the UNIX Operating System largely by myself (compiler and non-OS work done by other members of the team), and have direct UNIX internals source experience with 11 other UNIX ports. My last three years were spent at SCO working with source for XENIX, SCO UNIX/ODT, AT&T/USL, MIPS and OSF. I have read/reviewed most of the Bach book. I present my facts and arguments as an "expert witness". I have no conflict of interest ... I have no past or current relationship with UCB, USL, BSDI or any other party named or part of the official legal proceedings. If you have a rebuttal to any FACT, present only FACTS which you have either first hand experience with, or cite the published/written reference you base your argument on. Do not post "I think" or "I feel" arguments. >>Protection of these rights is absolutely necessary to protect not only >>the computer industry, but the entire technical, information, publishing >>and entertainment industries as well. No matter how much the newbies want >>free/low cost UNIX, 386BSD is a direct violation of AT&T/USL property >>rights. >> >>To strip AT&T of the right to protect it's UNIX property is wrong, no matter >>how much you may hate AT&T or the Bell System. To bully their employees, >>or picket their booths or offices, or any other action regarding their >>attempt to protect their investment of more than 10,000 man years and >>$5,000,000,000 expenses to develop, support, and market this product -- >>is simply as flawed and wrong as the UCB team that plagiarized UNIX >>components for the Net2 and 386BSD releases. UCB has not, will not, can >>not EVER invest this amount of man power or dollars to make a software >>product -- if not for any other reason than the people of California will >>not allow their taxes to be spent competing unfairly with private business. > >John, I hereby challenge you to demonstrate publically that any >code from Berkeley's Net/2 distribution is close enough to any >AT&T version that it's plagarism and copyright infringement. I love a challenge and debate. To examine source code, we will need to introduce several virgin UNIX source files into evidence ... Would AT&T/USL please help this forum by posting (introducing into evidence) the V7/32V source modules for the bio, clock and tty services. In addition would I would like a copyright release for using the Bach puesdocode descriptions corresponding to bio, clock, and tty services for discussion in this forum. The V7/32V source modules and Bach puedocode posted into this news group should be clearly identified, with copyright and the restriction that the modules are only to be used for discussion inside this newsgroup -- IE. they are not to be copied outside this news group and/or used for any other purpose. While the plagiarism and violation of AT&T/USL rights is not limited to these three modules ... they do represent clearly the degree that UCB violated AT&T UNIX code rights. Stand by ... continued to next posting John Bass DMS Design