Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.os2.programmer:11296 comp.os.coherent:9147 comp.os.linux:36563 comp.os.mach:2819 comp.os.minix:22031 comp.periphs:3584 comp.unix.bsd:11934 comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit:2543 comp.os.386bsd.development:614
Newsgroups: comp.os.os2.programmer,comp.os.coherent,comp.os.linux,comp.os.mach,comp.os.minix,comp.periphs,comp.unix.bsd,comp.unix.pc-clone.32bit,comp.os.386bsd.development
Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!munnari.oz.au!news.Hawaii.Edu!ames!sun-barr!decwrl!netcomsv!netcom.com!jmonroy
From: jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr)
Subject: Re: QIC NEWS ----- FLASH
Message-ID: <jmonroyC68DnF.F9J@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 241-9760 guest)
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.1 PL6]
References: <jmonroyC66G2s.Dzw@netcom.com>
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 1993 05:52:27 GMT
Lines: 51
mail henry@zoo.toronto.edu
Re: Subject: Re: QIC NEWS ----- FLASH
Date: Wed, 28 Apr 1993 16:37:37 GMT
Organization: U of Toronto Zoology
>> In article <jmonroyC66G2s.Dzw@netcom.com> jmonroy@netcom.com (Jesus Monroy Jr) writes:
>> > "I should note at that time, mid-1964, we had the ability to run
>> > a fork process."
>> >...
>> > As some of you are aware, there have been accusations that
>> > the current BSD source has source code that is copyright by
>> > USL (Unix System Laboratories). These statements by Mr. Hardy point,
>> > in some light, with good possibilities that USL is incorrect...
>>
>> This is sheer ignorance, I'm afraid. Whether the notion of "fork" existed
>> before Unix has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with the questions of
>> trade secret and/or copyright that are being fought over right now.
>>
If I have made this greivous error, than I am the fool.
Please, inform me as how you received your information.
I will post messsages to this effect.
As such, I beleive it is the only responsible thing to do.
>> A copyright, on source code or anything else, protects only the form of
>> expression, not the ideas expressed. And the Unix concept of "fork" --
>> as opposed to its implementation -- cannot be a trade secret since it
>> has been public knowledge since Unix's earliest days.
>>
What you state here is only known in some circles,
certainly not amoung all judges.
I, certainly, do not want to stir the pot.
Please give us real information.
>> USL has made some stupid claims, but they haven't gone this far.
>>
Please give me the correct information.
>> Furthermore, Hardy's statement is not news.
>>
Opinion.
>> Thompson and Ritchie, in the classic CACM paper that first publicized
>> Unix widely, said: "The fork operation, essentially as we implemented
>> it, was present in the GENIE time-sharing system." Those words were
>> published in 1974, folks.
>>
Please give us the name of your reference material for our
future correct records. Page numbers would be appreciated.