Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!aplcen!jhunix!doug From: doug@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU (Douglas W O'neal) Newsgroups: comp.misc Subject: Re: Why "worm" instead of "germ" Message-ID: <3985@jhunix.HCF.JHU.EDU> Date: 18 Jan 90 15:15:53 GMT References: <1476@umigw.MIAMI.EDU> <76929@looking.on.ca> <77443@looking.on.ca> Reply-To: doug@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu (Douglas W. O'Neal) Organization: The Johns Hopkins University - HCF Lines: 20 In article bob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) writes: ->In article <77443@looking.on.ca> brad@looking.on.ca (Brad Templeton) writes: -> While it's clear that the Morris program didn't act as a "virus"... -> Morris' program was a "germ" or "bacterium."... -> ->Careful - it's still only *allegedly* Morris' program. Nothing has ->been proven in court. Don't make any assumptions or cooperate in any ->aspersion-casting before the facts of the case are established. Quoted from the Baltimore Sun (1/18/90) (without permission): During the five days of testimony in the case, neither the prosecution nor the defense has disputed that Mr. Morris loosed a computer worm. I think that if Morris' lawyer accepts that it was Morris' program, then it is probably safe for us to do so to. -- Doug O'Neal Distributed Systems Programmer Homewood Academic Computing doug@jhuvms.bitnet, doug@jhuvms.hcf.jhu.edu Johns Hopkins University mimsy!aplcen!jhunix!doug