Return to BSD News archive
Xref: sserve gnu.misc.discuss:6132 comp.org.eff.talk:8939 comp.unix.bsd:4590 comp.os.mach:2067 misc.int-property:477 Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,comp.org.eff.talk,comp.unix.bsd,comp.os.mach,misc.int-property,alt.suit.att-bsdi Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!uunet!spsgate!mogate!newsgate!chdasic.sps.mot.com!dichter From: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com (Carl Dichter) Subject: Re: AT&T Long Distance Boycott (was: BNR2SS, Mach, and The Lawsuit) Message-ID: <1992Sep4.234429.18294@newsgate.sps.mot.com> Sender: usenet@newsgate.sps.mot.com Nntp-Posting-Host: 223.197.55.10 Organization: SPS References: <1992Sep1.090548.8351@uhura1.uucp> <1992Sep1.130800.14354@news.acns.nwu.edu> <MJB.92Sep1163324@oak7.doc.ic.ac.uk> <EDWI5ZL@taronga.com> <1992Sep2.220141.17026@nntp.hut.fi> Date: Fri, 4 Sep 1992 23:44:29 GMT Lines: 53 In article <1992Sep2.220141.17026@nntp.hut.fi>, jkp@cs.HUT.FI (Jyrki Kuoppala) writes: |> In article <EDWI5ZL@taronga.com>, peter@taronga (Peter da Silva) writes: |> >In article <MJB.92Sep1163324@oak7.doc.ic.ac.uk> mjb@doc.ic.ac.uk (Matthew J Brown) writes: |> >>IMHO this issue is only of much importance to computing professionals. |> > |> >IMHO it's not. AT&T is effectively expanding intellectual property protection |> >in general. I personally believe that if they had made *some* of these claims |> >about 3 years ago, when Berkeley started large-scale source code releases, |> >they would have been justified. Other of their claims imply that if one has |> >had access to "protected" materials one can never work in that particular |> >industry again. Those claims are of interest to everyone. |> > |> >I disagree with broadcast posting this sort of call to every group on other |> >grounds, but to claim that only computing professionals have an interest in |> >intellectual property laws is ridiculous. Actually, NET2 was the first release from CSRG (the BSD people) that did not require a license from ATT/USL. That's one reason why it is an issue: Right or wrong, BSDI (with the help of CSRG) is selling a product, (occasionally) calling it UNIX without any payment or credit to ATT/USL. Personally, I'll invest any future money of my own, or my employer in POSIX compliant OS (like OSF1, OS/2, Windows NT, etc). So I personally wouldn't care if all old releases of UNIX went into the public domain: for the educational benefit of everyone. But in reality if a company doesn't defend its intellectual property, they loose it. I don't think ATT/USL is concerned about BSDI's revenue stream for a BSD 4.3 based release. They just can't have a precendence set wherein any technologies that they developed can be sold without their "piece". BTW: If software patents were the de-facto mechanism for protecting software intellectual property back in the 70s-- I don't this action (suit) would have happened. The portions of ATT property would have been clearly disclosed in patents, and competing OS vendors could have avoided them. In this case, the information was protected by non-disclosure (trade-secret) and copyright-- how the hell can someone know what is ok to disclose and what is not ok? BSD the best thing that ever happened to UNIX as an OS-- it benefitted ATT releases by providing new functionality and a cadre of university UNIX exposed people. BSD is also the worst thing that could happen to UNIX as a product for ATT-- as soon as it became an educational tool it's "ownership" came into question. ---------------------- Carl R. Dichter "iwannanugui" Motorola ASIC Division email: dichter@chdasic.sps.mot.com Opinions are my own.