Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve comp.os.386bsd.misc:5521 comp.unix.bsd:16272 comp.sys.novell:68893 Path: sserve!newshost.anu.edu.au!harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au!bunyip.cc.uq.oz.au!munnari.oz.au!news.hawaii.edu!ames!pacbell.com!att-out!oucsboss!sun!malgudi.oar.net!cedarnet.cedarville.edu!calvin!gumby!newsxfer.itd.umich.edu!zip.eecs.umich.edu!newshost.marcam.com!news.mathworks.com!news2.near.net!public.x.org!fedora.x.org!kaleb From: kaleb@fedora.x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) 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 95 11:05:19 GMT Organization: X Consortium, Cambridge, Massachusetts Lines: 104 Message-ID: <kaleb.792846319@fedora.x.org> 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> NNTP-Posting-Host: fedora.x.org Terry Lambert <terry@cs.weber.edu> writes: >kaleb@x.org (Kaleb KEITHLEY) wrote: >] >Why even observe the trappings of democracy your "Cabal" supposedly >] >subverts? >] >] Yeah it's a farce, so what? Is there a constructive suggestion buried >] in code somewhere in your post or is this just more rhetoric? >Yes, there is the question of why follow rules which you yourself >call farcical. >Reconstructed, this is "why don't you *not* follow rules you >consider farcical" -- a constructive (I think) suggestion that >you resort to civil disobedience. Perhaps I should post a new RFD for comp.os.386bsd.poli-sci? Or comp.os.386bsd.legal? >] Lots of people keep trying to turn this into a debate about whether >] FreeBSD, NetBSD, BSD/OS, and 386BSD have a legal right to call themselves >] UNIX. That's not what this is about at all. It's about getting groups in >] Usenet for them. So get past whether they're really UNIX or not. Get past >] the fact that the only opening in the Usenet name space has the word UNIX >] in it. It also has BSD in it, and these operating systems, UNIX or not, >] are undeniably derived from BSD. If that's not true, then ask yourself >] why do their names even have BSD in them. >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. >I think that they would be required to pursue it or lose rights >to their trademark. Yes, I'm in 100% agreement with you. >I'm willing to pay the postage to allow you to inform Novell in >writing by registered mail (return receipt requested) of the >existing news group names, the software that they refer to, and >the current outstanding call for votes to instantiate a news >group claiming derivation of BSD from UNIX (ie: a claim of >dilution of trademark). Why aren't you willing to write the letter yourself? >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. >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? >In the end, news group naming is controlled by UUNET, NetCOM, PSI, >and other backbone providers deciding what they will and won't >propagate. So maybe their attorneys should send letters to Novell? >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? Do you have some kind of vested interest in Novell? Are you on Novell's payroll? 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. 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. -- Kaleb KEITHLEY