telecom@eecs.nwu.edu (TELECOM Moderator) (02/25/90)
The news on the street is that there is more to the Jolnet stink than
has been previously revealed --
We're told by a deep-throat type that AT&T is on the war path about
their software, and that 3b2 people in particular are targeted for
'counseling' and whatever corrective action is deemed necessary by
'the authorities'.
So the story on the street goes, another prominent netter was arrested
just recently by the same friendly folks who shut down Jolnet not long
ago. Like jolnet, netsys went down abruptly, with *everything*
confiscated, including a box of old busted up circuit boards in the
basement which hadn't been looked at in years. Now comes news that
attcdc, formerly known as killer went off line in a hurry.....
When 'the authorities' come a-calling, with warrant in hand, and their
credentials in order, they start looking for Mother's source code; 3b2
stuff and the like, and they keep looking until they find it.
You say they won't come knocking at your door? You say you'll take it
all off line and store it on a reel of tape stashed in the back of the
bottom drawer of an old file cabinet somewhere? They *will* find it.
And when they find it, your choices will be:
1) You stole this from AT&T. You are a cracker. You'll go to jail.
2) If you didn't steal it from AT&T, then someone gave it to you.
Tell us who.... if you won't tell us, then go back to choice 1.
If you will snitch, and tell us who gave you this code, then
the Court will be lenient and show mercy upon you -- but we
won't put that in writing of course! :)
Faced with these two options, of course everyone selects choice 2. And
with the new information gleaned from the visit, another site is
scheduled for downtime.
Consider Rich Andrews of Jolnet: Our deep-throat says Rich was first
confronted in the 911 software caper, then the feds found other
goodies. Could it be the feds started squeezing in a private place
and Rich started singing the tune they wanted to hear? Do crackers
stick together when times get tough or do they turn on each other?
You just never know about these things. Some people have been saying
the only safe thing to do at this point is 'rm illegal.software'; go
wash their hands and be done with it, but far be it from me to suggest
such a thing. That could be construed as an obstruction of justice in
what appears now to be an on-going investigation in our net community
of people whose systems are dirty....
Jolnet ===> netsys ===> attcdc (killer) ===> your 3b2 site name here.
Patrick Townsonjkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) (02/27/90)
In comp.dcom.telecom you write: >When 'the authorities' come a-calling, with warrant in hand, and their >credentials in order, they start looking for Mother's source code; 3b2 >stuff and the like, and they keep looking until they find it. I've always said that possession (use, sale, distribution) of AT&T software should be a crime. Now it appears that someone agrees with me, but it's a bit of a surprise that it's AT&T itself. Hmmm, maybe AT&T knows something we don't? Well, here's to liberating Mach, and the fine work from the FSF. The time is coming when the arriving AT&T folks will be laughed at, and invited to look for stolen copies of the periodic table too. You know, the one that's trademark AT&T, copyright Apple, patent IBM? AT&T certainly has a right to protect its interests. But the passion it's showing in defense of its rights to yesterday's software would be better directed toward developing the software that will sell tomorrow. Of course, given the ratio of programmers to lawyers in the boardroom, I realize that this will be hard to explain to management. Jonathan Krueger jkrueger@dtic.dla.mil uunet!dgis!jkrueger The Philip Morris Companies, Inc: without question the strongest and best argument for an anti-flag-waving amendment.
la063249@zach.fit.edu (Bill Huttig) (02/28/90)
I thought killer was already closed down for the AT&T source code thing a couple years back. When it came back online it became attcdc. Bill [Moderator's Note: You thought correctly, however it is down again, as of a few days ago. Wondering why? Maybe I will have some answers, in the form of comments by Mike Andrews in a day or so. PT]
wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu (Bill Wisner) (02/28/90)
>I thought killer was already closed down for the AT&T source code thing a >couple years back. When it came back online it became attcdc. attctc. WITH A T!! Bill Wisner <wisner@hayes.fai.alaska.edu> Gryphon Gang Fairbanks AK 99775 "Put a cork in it, Wisner." -- Karl Kleinpaste <karl@cis.ohio-state.edu> [Moderator's Note: I know, I know! That's one typo (in two places yet!) that got passed me and embarasses me still. PT]
learn@igloo.scum.com (Bill Vajk) (03/02/90)
In article <4467@accuvax.nwu.edu>, jkrueger@dgis.dtic.dla.mil (Jon) writes: > AT&T certainly has a right to protect its interests. But the passion > it's showing in defense of its rights to yesterday's software would be > better directed toward developing the software that will sell > tomorrow. Of course, given the ratio of programmers to lawyers in the > boardroom, I realize that this will be hard to explain to management. There is never any justification for theft. On the other hand, I know less than a handful of people who have legally purchased every bit of software on their computers, and I know a lot of folks with computers. If a friend comes over one night, has just purchased a great new game, and you and he plug it into your machine to play it, are you going to erase it from the harddrive when he goes home taking the floppies with him? In fact, have you erased it yet? Generally, the answer is no. Is it likely that the software house is going to come calling to investigate your machine? No. Many of us date back to CPM days, when sharing was the way things were done in a hobbyist fashion. A 3b2-300 cost what, perhaps 30,000 dollars or some ridiculous amount back then? And out comes Osborne with bundled software, a great deal for everyone. And precludes the necessity to purchase any additional essentials in terms of software. And Saint Ward Christensen gives his code to the world, all except CBBS which costs $50 to help support the first BBS. Want to copy software? Just join the usergroup of your choice. Lots of machines and software available at the monthly meetings. CFOG used to cost 15 bux a year. Bring your machine, and lots of blank floppies. The sanctity and priesthood of the mainframe and mini have eroded away. Today a 3b2-300 is advertised on the net for under $2000. We, the hobbyists, have invaded the world previously the feudal realm of big bux, and have brought our hobbyist mentality into the world of power computing. By today's standards, a 3b2-300 is hardly a powerhouse. Most 80386 machines will run circles around it. But we're in the realm of AT&T software, and the feudal mentality. Given that Unix is now some 21 years old, and most of the source is pretty much compatable up and down the line over that time period, there is simply no way for AT&T to track all the source it has licensed. Indeed, Unix source has become much like the gun issue. Every gun manufactured, ever, was originally sold legitimately. Yet how many are illegally posessed today? Two cases in particular befit this discussion. I don't have the details, but some company in Wisconsin went bankrupt in the past couple of years. Among the goods auctioned off by the sheriff was a computer system WITH a Unix source license. This is was a legal sale, and no non-disclosure agreement was completed between the purchaser and AT&T. The source code license, whether AT&T likes it or not, was listed as an asset by the bankrupt company, and as such, there existed a legal requirement that the sheriff sell it at auction. The only protection I see for AT&T was to be present at the auction and purchase the source license back themselves. And if you have to buy it back, who really owns it? This case really begs the intellectual property rights question. When yacc source code was published on the net a few years back, someone from AT&T made the suggestion that anyone who saved it should destroy it. When asked directly if this had indeed been AT&T source code, plaintiff respondeth not. The other case, of which I have some first hand knowledge, is a company we all know and love, A. B. Dick. They usually stuck to the business of duplicating machines, but following the miswisdom of others in the pre-desktop-IBM days made a forray into the world of computers. They came out with a Unix based machine. Slow and cumbersome, a terrible thing. Sounded like a jet plane winding up when you flipped the switch. And in a home, you need no furnace in the wintertime. When they saturated their little market, they shoved their machines used for development into the back of their warehouse on Touhy Avenue in Chicago. Eventually, these refrigerator sized boxes were disposed of, a few at a time, to hobbyists. No self respecting business would accept one as a gift. No guessing how many such boxes were shipped out the back door, nor how many had full source code on them. I don't advocate theft. I can't justify posession of software I didn't pay for. Do I have any, personally? Like most folks I know, I have a few for my IBM clone. And how about the ones I bought from a legitimate dealer which are stamped "Demo only -- NOT FOR RESALE." AT&T has been known, historically, for their strange view of the real world. As soon as there is another OS available, with good stability and multi-user and UUCPish capabilities, I'll switch. I worked for Western Electric once upon a time. And I have some neat stories about 11 character per inch typewriters.....the standards are 10 and 12. They sure knew how to live in a protected environment. The determinations of ownership of source code aren't as nicely cleancut as prosecuting attorneys would like to have one believe. But there's something to be said for the clout associated with the driving force behind these prosecutions, and the expense of defending against them. Bill Vajk | It is the greatest good to the greatest number | which is the measure of right or wrong. - Jeremy Bentham [Works]
wmartin@stl-06sima.army.mil (Will Martin) (03/03/90)
>I worked for Western Electric once upon a time. And I have some neat >stories about 11 character per inch typewriters.....the standards are >10 and 12. They sure knew how to live in a protected environment. That sure rings a bell! We had some UNIX training here by contract with Western Electric back many years ago. We still have the special WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring binders, these look ordinary from the outside, but are sure different inside! The instructor mumbled something about it being a way to prevent employees from stealing supplies to use at home or give to their kids at school. Somehow I think the extra costs of having special products designed and produced for WE would far exceed the amount lost through employee petty theft if they used ordinary commercial products... :-) Please post your 11-cpi-typewriter tales! Regards, Will
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (03/06/90)
> WE-unique *4-ring* binders and *4-hole-punched* paper they provided to > us as part of the training materials. Designed specifically to be > incompatible with ordinary 3-hole-punched standard paper and 3-ring > binders, ... Four ring binders are standard in many parts of the world. I have a bunch of stuff on 4-ring paper. In fact when I was in Australia this excuse was given to me as an explanation of why the Honeywell Level 6 documents were pubbed in (USA) 3-ring binders. I'd think it'd be pretty easy for them to get as much of the 4-ring kind as they want. _--_|\ Peter da Silva. +1 713 274 5180. <peter@ficc.uu.net>. / \ \_.--._/ Xenix Support -- it's not just a job, it's an adventure! v "Have you hugged your wolf today?" `-_-'