Date: Wed, 29 Sep 93 04:30:04 PDT
From: Advanced Amateur Radio Networking Group <tcp-group@ucsd.edu>
Errors-To: TCP-Group-Errors@UCSD.Edu
Reply-To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Precedence: Bulk
Subject: TCP-Group Digest V93 #252
To: tcp-group-digest
TCP-Group Digest Wed, 29 Sep 93 Volume 93 : Issue 252
Today's Topics:
copyrights (2 msgs)
Hakers allert (3 msgs)
Please be warned, intruders (2 msgs)
Proxim Patent on MACA (ZZingg!)
Reply to HACKER ALERT: correction (2 msgs)
SMTPSERV.C Bug !
subscribe ~#
Why I hate copyrights (2 msgs)
Why I hate patents
Send Replies or notes for publication to: <TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu>.
Subscription requests to <TCP-Group-REQUEST@UCSD.Edu>.
Problems you can't solve otherwise to brian@ucsd.edu.
Archives of past issues of the TCP-Group Digest are available
(by FTP only) from UCSD.Edu in directory "mailarchives".
We trust that readers are intelligent enough to realize that all text
herein consists of personal comments and does not represent the official
policies or positions of any party. Your mileage may vary. So there.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 21:07:32 EST
From: kz1f@kz1f.hdn.legent.com
Subject: copyrights
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Given the length of time NOS (et al) have been in the REAL PUBLIC
domain, I doubt any 'copyrights' are valid (except mine <g>). To say
only Amateur and Educational... I think is foolish, there are many
folks out there using nos commercially. I dont mean selling/reselling
it but as a free tcpip at their desk. So long as its source is on
compuserve/ucsd allows anonymous logins, its on multiple dialup bbs' then NOS
JNOS etc etc are really live PUBLIC domain, none of this us only stuff. If one
looks at the code (save kernel.c) and look at alot of the source for
IBM/SUN/Berkely code, there is a remarkable resemblence.
-Walt
- I think this thread is good for atleast a month ;-)
**********************************************************
* kz1f - Walt Corey * In the absence of a *
* The views expressed are my own * formal system, *
* as are PMNOS, PMail, WPmail * an informal system *
* and WPNOS * develops *
**********************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 01:09:27 -0400
From: "Louis A. Mamakos" <louie@NI.umd.edu>
Subject: copyrights
To: kz1f@kz1f.hdn.legent.com
> Given the length of time NOS (et al) have been in the REAL PUBLIC
> domain, I doubt any 'copyrights' are valid (except mine <g>). To say
> only Amateur and Educational... I think is foolish, there are many
> folks out there using nos commercially. I dont mean selling/reselling
> it but as a free tcpip at their desk. So long as its source is on
> compuserve/ucsd allows anonymous logins, its on multiple dialup bbs' then NOS
> JNOS etc etc are really live PUBLIC domain, none of this us only stuff.
There are real differences between "Public Domain" and freely
redistributable code; ask your lawyer. A work or publication that
contains a Copyright notice is NOT in the public domain. Works that
are published with no specific notice may still be elligible for
copyright protection; you have to explicitly reqliquish your rights to
a work for it to be in the public domain. As they say, ignorance of
the law is no excuse.
You should consider yourself fortunate that through the generosity of
Phil Karn, you have the source code to this program available. He
chooses to make it available to folks with specific limitations; if
you can't deal with that, then you are certainly free to get your
software from another source.
The fact that there are people using NOS (and NET before that) in
violation of the redistribution terms in no way makes those terms
invalid. Those people are in the wrong, pure and simple. To use that
as an excuse is no way to repay Phil's hard work.
> If one
> looks at the code (save kernel.c) and look at alot of the source for
> IBM/SUN/Berkely code, there is a remarkable resemblence.
While there are similarities in the names of some data structures, it
is very clear to me that the NOS code is not derived from the BSD
networking code. I have done extensive work on 4.2, 4.3, 4.3 Tahoe
and 4.3 Reno BSD kernels as well as a port of the NOS package to the
Amiga some years ago, so I think I can speak with some authority here.
For example, m_pullup() in NOS is significantly different than the
like named function in the BSD kernels. The socket abstraction is
significantly different, etc.
It just really angers me to see someone take this position! As
someone who has written software and released it on similar terms as
the NOS software this certainly doesn't encourage me to more of the
same! Your position is just disrepectable and despicable.
If you think it's silly to put non-commercial restrictions on freely
redistributable software, feel free to write your own TCP/IP package
and put it in the public domain, with no use restrictions, for all to
use.
Feh,
Louis A. Mamakos
WA3YMH
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 12:18:39 +0100
From: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
Subject: Hakers allert
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Hello All,
The subject has moved some people aparently into a state of .....
It was and still is my intention to warn the group (and the gateways group)
for a possible attack by "intruders" (lower live forms ???? (not my quote))
We do have a record of break ins by people using a combination of CB and
Internet, witch we have to defend ourselves to. PERIOD.
Even well respected contributors make ( ?? ) mistakes, sample: the inclusion
of a non existing nl.ampr.org in networks in Linux.
Please calm down every one.
Regards, Gerard.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 13:58:46 -0600 (MDT)
From: William Ti Baggett <wbaggett@nmsu.edu>
Subject: Hakers allert
To: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
Maybe I'm paranoid also, but as a gateway sysop, I appreciate Gerard and
other sysops posting strange activities. Sometimes the attempts may be
caused by hackers (IE lower life forms) and sometimes they may be
ligitimate users that are not knowledgeable with what they are wanting to
do. In any event, knowing of certain strange things that others have seen
on their gateway can just serve to let me know what to be looking for on
my own.
73,
df
********************************************************************
Tim Baggett, AA5DF Electrical Engineering Student
New Mexico State University
Internet: WBAGGETT@DANTE.NMSU.EDU
AMPR: AA5DF@NMSUGW.AMPR.ORG US Snail: 1970 Buchanan Avenue
Twisted Pair: (505) 523-6829 Las Cruces, NM 88001
********************************************************************
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 03:18:01 +0100
From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <waltje@hacktic.nl>
Subject: Hakers allert
To: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Dear All,
[ removed the Cc: to "gateways" - I am not supposed to be there... ]
> The subject has moved some people aparently into a state of .....
Yes, the contents of my mailbox tells me about the same. Can we call
this the result of a somewhat uncarefully-worded warning message, and
get it over with?
> It was and still is my intention to warn the group (and the gateways group)
> for a possible attack by "intruders" (lower live forms ???? (not my quote))
Mine, and it's "life". I fully agree with warnings about possible abuse
of the AMPR gateways - they're too valuable to losse them because of any
kind of hacks. I am on *your* side here!
> We do have a record of break ins by people using a combination of CB and
> Internet, witch we have to defend ourselves to. PERIOD.
Ehh, "CB" as in "CBnXXX" callsigns, or as in "CB network people" ?
I know there is a gateway in Canada somewhere, which was "used" by
some CBnet people. I found out, notified the gw operators, and sent
the offending CB'ers a note about "not to abuse the AMPR.ORG machines
just for fooling around!" Most of them *did* listen to me. Again, I
am on *your* side of the problem.
> Even well respected contributors make ( ?? ) mistakes, sample: the inclusion
> of a non existing nl.ampr.org in networks in Linux.
That is "nl.cb.ampr.org", I put that in, and I take care of forwarding
that domain. I did have a short discussion with Brian (Kantor) about
this, and got a "CB is not for real, so no .cb subdomain. Convince
me if you think I am wrong!" reply.
So, I dropped the subdomain (I don't have the time to convince short-
sighted people of their being wrong, I applied for a domain of our own.
I am using a subdomain of my own network (.mugnet.org, 145.71) as an
interim right now. Not pretty, but not my fault - I tried.
> Please calm down every one.
Gnah. Looking at the "votes" in my mailbox, I think I can safely
state that I *am* allowed to be on this group, and on a lot of others
too. Does anyone want to see a summary?
Note that this is NOT a "choose for pa0gri or nl0wlt" voting, it's
much more a "do we allow CBnet people on our groups or not?" thing
now, as it should. I do not have anything against Gerard personally
(he should remember me if he digs *deep* in his past...), and I am
*not* offended by the "Hacker Alert" warning (although it *was*
worded uncarefully) - Ijust want to be allowed to share in the
discussions on this and some other groups....
To make us all feel better: votes to: <waltje@sunsite.unc.edu>
(this is definitely *not* a hacker's network - your votes are safe ;->
Last but not least: calm down, everyone. There's no need for a fight...
Cheers,
Fred NL0WLT
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 11:25:45 +0100
From: Alan Cox <iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk>
Subject: Please be warned, intruders
To: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
Sometimes some people get me really really annoyed. Tell me why CB isn;t
amateur radio ? It does seem to be radio and it doesnt seem to be
professional. There are a lot of people who are part of hacktic.nl and
it is a real working network not a bunch of crackers. Maybe they do have
one or two dubious users, but so does every other network I know of.
FvK has contributed a lot too free software and to many other projects,
in fact he makes the PA0GRI tweaks to NOS look an irrelevance in the
field of free software compared to his contributions.
By all means moan at him in private about your petty little license rules
but since tcp-group is meant to be about tcp/ip work with KA9Q and related
things not about petty vendettas please take it elsewhere.
The GW4PTS node in the UK is no longer distributing PA0GRI NOS.
Have a nice life.
Alan
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 10:00:07 EST
From: kz1f@kz1f.hdn.legent.com
Subject: Please be warned, intruders
To: iiitac@pyr.swan.ac.uk, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
> Sometimes some people get me really really annoyed. Tell me why CB isn;t
> amateur radio ? It does seem to be radio and it doesnt seem to be
Alan,
If I follow this thread correctly, perhaps the answer is, in the US, CB radio
is not a media for digital communications. In fact, it is not intended to be
for anything other than very local (12 watts) person to person voice(no cq dx)
communication. The R & D, most anything goes communications is left for the
Amateur Radio arena. Therefor I think the crux of the argument is that in other
countries CB is also an almost anything goes facility. So, it boils down to
what sociologists call "cultural relativity".
-Walt
*********************************
* kz1f@kz1f.ampr.org or *
* kz1f@legent.com *
* The home of OS/2 NOS and PMail*
*********************************
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 21:58:00 -0700
From: karn@qualcomm.com (Phil Karn)
Subject: Proxim Patent on MACA (ZZingg!)
To: wireless@tandem.com, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
Patent No. 5,231,634
IN THE UNITED STATES
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
In re patent of
Rick R Giles
Paul G Smith
Patent No. 5,231,634
Assignee: Proxim, Inc
Issued: July 27, 1993
For: Medium Access Protocol for Wireless LANs
THE COMMISSIONER OF PATENTS AND TRADEMARKS
WASHINGTON, DC 20231
SIR:
SUBMISSION OF PRIOR ART UNDER 37 CFR 1.501
The undersigned herewith submits in the above-identified patent the
following prior art (including copies thereof) which is pertinent and
applicable to the patent and is believed to have a bearing on the
patentability of the claims therein.
"MACA - A New Channel Access Method for Packet Radio",
Phil Karn, KA9Q, Proceedings of the ARRL 9th Computer Networking
Conference, London Ontario, Canada, September 22, 1990.
ISBN 0-87259-337-1
In view of 1) the remarkable similarity of the scheme described in
this reference to that in the aforementioned patent, including even
much of the terminology used and references to related techniques, 2)
the lack of any mention of this reference in the patent, and 3) the
fact that application for this patent was filed on December 18, 1991,
more than one year after the publication of the reference cited above,
you may wish to reconsider the validity of this patent.
I am the author of the reference cited above, and the sole creator of
the technique it describes. It was and is my intention that it pass
into the public domain.
Respectfully Submitted,
Philip R. Karn, Jr.
Radio Amateur Station KA9Q
7431 Teasdale Ave
San Diego, CA 92122
619-587-8281 (voice)
619-587-1825 (fax)
karn@unix.ka9q.ampr.org (Internet email)
US Patent 5,231,634
Submission of Prior Art
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 29th day of September 1993, that a true
and correct copy of the foregoing Submission of Prior Art was mailed
by first-class mail, postage paid, to the following address of the
owner of US Patent 5,231,634, believed to be correct:
David King, President
Proxim, Inc
295 N. Bernardo
Mountain View, CA 94043
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 11:20:29 +0100
From: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
Subject: Reply to HACKER ALERT: correction
To: "Fred N. van Kempen" <waltje@hacktic.nl>
> Gerard PA0GRI @ CDC.COM comments on my note:
>
> > >Hey, this is good news! After you published it, make sure to
> > >zap all old driver archives... I still find "drivers.arc" at
> > >a lot of sites :-)
> > >
> > He is not in the position to do such things..
>
> Hmm, why not? He is the principal maintainer of the packet driver
> collection, isn't he? Of course, that doesn't mean that he *owns*
> the stuff, but zapping any old stuff would be in the general inte-
> rest, I think. Correct me if I am wrong...
You are Wrong! This remark is narow minded , as is the second half (the largest
halve that is) on wich I will not comment any further anymore.
Russ only puts his stuf on his direct controllable machines.
Others the copy it to a zillion+1 places. He is not in control over those
places. The copiers are.
----- Much deleted ------
Regards, Gerard.
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 1993 03:00:15 +0100
From: "Fred N. van Kempen" <waltje@hacktic.nl>
Subject: Reply to HACKER ALERT: correction
To: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com, waltje@hacktic.nl
Gerard comments again:
>From: pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com
>> > >
>> > He is not in the position to do such things..
>>
>> Hmm, why not? He is the principal maintainer of the packet driver
>> collection, isn't he? Of course, that doesn't mean that he *owns*
>> the stuff, but zapping any old stuff would be in the general inte-
>> rest, I think. Correct me if I am wrong...
>You are Wrong! This remark is narow minded , as is the second half (the largest
>halve that is) on wich I will not comment any further anymore.
Why not? You're Dutch - call me :-)
>Russ only puts his stuf on his direct controllable machines.
Yes, and my "zap'em" remark was about these machines, not:
>Others the copy it to a zillion+1 places. He is not in control over those
>places. The copiers are.
Naturally. I supposed the intention of the remark would be
clear enough. I know the position Russ is in (boy, *do* I
know it! :-> ...
Fred.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 23:45:23 BST
From: John Trickey <john@its.bt.co.uk>
Subject: SMTPSERV.C Bug !
To: k2mf@wg2w.njit.edu
Barry,
I cannot resist this one. Although I do not use JNOS (many around me do though)
the mail topic is one I have spent many hours on.
Tue Sep 28: Wayne <"Barry Siegfried>,, NJ 07470) [44.64.0.100]" <k2mf@k2mf.ampr.org> wrote:
>
> The Feature
> -----------
> Johan (WG7J) put some code into SMTPSERV.C, which replaces any
> period "." characters in the user field of an SMTP mail header
> that is required to be interpreted by a NOS machine, with forward
> slash "/" characters. The idea here, according to the comment in
> the source code, was to give NOS the ability to write mail into
> mailfiles that exist in subdirectories underneath the standard
> /spool/mail directory (or whatever other directory is defined
> in the program as "Mailspool").
[ etc ]
I personally view this as dangerous and my router will only accept mail
to files when it has first gone though an alias translation. That way I
can control the files generated. Anyway thats not your point nor is it
the reason for my reply. I would suggest the fix is to return a
"User Unknown" in this circumstance to give an element of control on the
creation of subdirs.
> The Problem
> -----------
> The real problem arises when NOS is required to interpret bang "!"
> characters in the user fields of UUCP email addresses. The fact
> is, NOS neither interprets nor parses these characters at all.
[ detail deleted ]
My simple comment is "and so it shouldn't". Bang addressing is a hang
over from the old days when we only had UUCP and much more hair :-)
Today it should be unneccessary and any mailer interfacing with uucp and
worthy of its salt would cope with the conversion from % to ! with no
problem. Mixed addressing is a NONO. How do you parse it? Take your example
uunet!target.machine!user@nos.machine
A pure uucp mailer would try to connect to host <uunet> and a pure smtp
mailer <nos.machine>. There are no rules to cater for the above. I agree
yours is the logical order which I implement in a mail router but not in NOS.
It would be perfectly valid to mail user%target.machine%uunet@nos.machine
>from NOS and get the result you expect. SMTP mailers would handle the
forwarding to uunet where its sendmail or WHY would convert user@target.machine
into target.machine!user and send it on. If it doesn't, mail the postmaster
as it doesn't deserve to be a uucp gateway :-)
If you still feel uncertain about this, talk to the postmaster at your site
and ask him to show you how sendmail copes with this. From NOS, just rely
on that technology and don't try a Jurassic Park.
73, John
--
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+ Work + Play +
+ Internet: jvt@its.bt.co.uk + Internet: john@its.bt.co.uk +
+ + Amprnet: john@g4rev.ampr.org +
+ + BBS: G4REV@GB7LOB.#11.GBR.EU +
+------------------------------------+------------------------------------+
+ Intel free zone +
+-------------------------------------------------------------------------+
------------------------------
Date: 28 Sep 1993 12:58:00 -0400 (EDT)
From: Fernando Tonolete 31137 <FTONOLETE@worldbank.org>
Subject: subscribe ~#
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 15:18:10 -0500 (CDT)
From: Steve Sampson <ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil>
Subject: Why I hate copyrights
To: TCP-Group@UCSD.Edu
Speaking of patents . . .
Could someone please list all the owners of claimed copyrights to the KA9Q
NOS package. That is, list each module, and the claimants. Then list all the
rights that are reserved by each claimant, for every version of NOS :-)
I often wonder what goes through the minds of people who make one change to a
module and decide they need to emblazen it with their own limitations. If the
base software (NOS) is already limited in rights it makes no sense to limit the
limits. Rather than a 6-line copyright, how about just putting your name,
email address, and callsign, and leave the copyrights to the codes original
owner. It seems to be getting worse each year, and probably none of them have
even consulted a lawyer to see if they can even claim such rights. I realize
that ego is important, and people like to see their name in print (even a dumb
computer listing) but statements like:
". . . provided this notice is retained."
are pretty dumb. What do you think we're going to do? Delete your name or
copyright when you're not looking?
Then we get comments like:
> pa0gri@tophat.cdh.cdc.com says:
> The use of NOS (pa0gri nos and its many derivatives) outside HAM and
> educational institutions is actualy a nono. (see Copyright notes)
Actually there are so many copyrights in GRINOS and JNOS that the common man
(me) couldn't comprehend the meaning or total limitations. Some of the rights
reserved are limited to "commercial use", some to "provided this notice is
retained", and even some to "Amateur Radio".
Me being a Roman Catholic of course, allows me to ignore them all, as the
Pope has stated that mere state law has no authority :-)
---
Steve N5OWK
"The word 'mine' is the first step to War"
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 1993 19:51:37 -0400 (EDT)
From: MIKEBW@ids.net (Mike Bilow)
Subject: Why I hate copyrights
To: ssampson@sabea-oc.af.mil, tcp-group@ucsd.edu
While your point about the Pope is well taken, perhaps I can help to
clarify things. I own the "ax25 filter" command. For each issuance
of the command, whether from the keyboard or the automatic startup
file, I expect royalties. Do you have the address to which to send
the monthly checks? You may, of course, use the command during an
initial 30-day evaluation period without charge.
-- Mike
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 28 Sep 93 10:39:24 PDT
From: brian@nothing.ucsd.edu (Brian Kantor)
Subject: Why I hate patents
To: tcp-group@ucsd.edu
As nearly any patent attorney will tell you, the US Patent Office has
pretty much given up the evaluation of the technical claims in any
sophisticated patent application. It is apparent that their current
philosophy is to grant the patent and let the courts decide whether it
is valid or not.
This, to my mind, reeks of bureaurocratic incompetence, but I suppose I
shouldn't be surprised. I've been told by one attorney that this new
philosophy was the result engendered by recent history - every time the
patent office denied a patent application, it went to court anyway, so
this way the party granted the patent and the parties challenging it go
to court, rather than the patent office.
Arrgh.
- Brian
------------------------------
End of TCP-Group Digest V93 #252
******************************
******************************