Brunner vs. Gerrold on "worms" and "viruses"

[Timothy C. May]

Steve Bellovin cites David Gerrold as an early, perhaps the earliest,
for mention of worms or viruses in computers:

> Personally, I give the credit to David Gerrold, in ``When Harlie Was One''.
> Here's a netnews posting of mine that explains my reasoning.
> 
> 
> >From postnews Wed Jun 24 20:14:53 1992
> Subject: Re: Viruses DO belong here!
> Newsgroups: comp.security.misc
...
> If we're going to use science fiction as sources -- and for terminology,
> why not? -- I'll see your ``Shockwave Rider'' and raise you ``When Harlie
> Was One'', by David Gerrold, copyright 1972.  (Portions of the book
> appeared earlier; I don't know if this section was included.)  Anyway,
> here are some relevant quotes.  (N.B.  I'm quoting the original version,
> not the later ``Release 2.0''.)
> 
>         ``Do you remember the VIRUS program?''
	

I have my circa 1972 copy of "Harlie" packed away, but my
recollection of this issue (sorry, no citations) is as follows"

* the _original_ version actually published in 1972 was an
abridgement, by Gerrold and his publisher, of his original manuscript.
I've read interviews with Gerrold in which he described how the
section on viruses was _deleted_. (This is my recollection, from stuff
I read around the time of the Morris worm, when Brunner was getting
the credit for inspiring Morris Jr. and others, and some were citing
"When Harlie was One." Like I said, my recollection may be faulty.)

* He also did an expanded version (the "Release 2.0" Steve cited),
updating the science and technology. This came out in 1988.

* but I also recall Gerrold saying that before Release 2.0 came out,
he and his publishers put back in some of the virus stuff into later
_printings_ of the 1972 version, seeing the interest in worms and
the like that Brunner's book had engendered. (This could help explain
Gerrold's mention of a "science fiction author," unless he was
self-referentially referring to himself.)

If the virus stuff is in the copies actually _printed_ before Brunner's
book, I agree that Gerrold deserves more credit than he usually gets.
If, however, the comments came from later printings and cannot be
found in pre-1976 printings, I think Gerrold cannot claim quite as
much credit.

I'll try to dig up my old 1972-3 copy, and will look in a used book store in
Santa Cruz today for one. (And Bamford, too, for shipment to others.)

Not that the fate of the world hinges on this....


--Tim May