garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (04/04/86)
A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley,
were protected (they had no explicit copyright notices). The interesting
discussion I received went as follows (my summary is at the bottom):
***********************************************************************
Copyright law requires a copyright notice.
It seems these files don't have one, so they can't be protected.
Software may also be protected as "proprietary information"
or as a "trade secret". Whether or not this software is
protected this way I think depends on how and where you got the sources.
Certainly if you signed a non-disclosure agreement before you got them
then you cannot redistribute them.
If, however, you found them on your local university computer system,
and they were not protected, and nobody ever told you
not to look/copy/redistribute them, then it seems to me that they
are fair game for redistribution.
The law protecting trade secrets and proprietary information
requires the owner to take strong measures to protect this information.
Once it slips out into public knowledge, it is no longer protected.
To my mind, lots of UNIX code has slipped out, since it is readable
by everyone on lots of university and business computer systems.
Probably the universities signed non-disclosure agreements
when they got the source, but AT&T has been a bit negligent in enforcement.
--
Jim Galbiati, GenRad Inc, Production Test Division
Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass. 01742
{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!jwg
(617) 369-4400 x2459
**************************************************************************
Absolutely not.
Both are licenced under your Unix source paper from ATT, and both are
trade secrets, even though not copy right.
***dan
{allegra,astrovax,princeton}!fisher!djl
**************************************************************************
You'd better read copyright law. You don't have to say "copyright"
anywhere in order to get protection. But if you don't, you can't sue
for more than the profit that was made. Yacc and lex are still covered
by copyright, even if they don't say so.
Check with a lawyer.
Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134
..!ihnp4!houxm!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!!!
**************************************************************************
lex and yacc are protected AT&T sources under the AT&T trade secret
agreement. They cannot be copied willy-nilly unless you want to risk a major
suit filed against you which would be impossible for you to win.
Tony Hansen
ihnp4!pegasus!hansen
**************************************************************************
We've been a UNIX shop over 10 years, so my information may be out of
date, but I know that both of the following were at one time true:
The source for yacc and lex that is distributed with 4BSD, Sys V, V7 (pick
your flavor), is covered by the AT&T software agreement. It is my
understanding that there are public domain versions of both, but
I don't remember when or where I got that understanding (there may be
DECUS versions).
At one time AT&T claimed that source code _generated_ by yacc and lex
was also covered (and perhaps the binaries as well - I don't remember).
I forget the exact line of reasoning, but while it was "legalistic" it
was not completely unreasonable.
Before you redistribute the sources for yacc and lex that you originally
got from AT&T (or from an AT&T licensee, which includes all UNIX-like
systems I've ever heard of) you would be wise to take a copy of your
source license agreement to _very_ competent legal counsel. Personally,
I would be equally careful of distributing source code that contained
yacc and/or lex output, and probably just as careful about binaries created
from yacc/lex output.
It was to avoid exactly this problem, and to keep the UC lawyers happy, that
I spent about two months some years ago hand coding a rather nasty database
data-definition language parser. (Of course the other benefit of hand coding
it was that it ran a lot faster than yacc/lex generated code would have and
I didn't have to worry about any of the bugs in either of those two.)
John Pierce, Chemistry, UC San Diego
jwp%chem@ucsd.edu
sdcsvax!sdchem!jwp
**************************************************************************
SO:
1) it can't be copyrighted because it has no explicit notice,
2) it may be copyrighted anyhow,
3) it is protected by an AT&T trade secret agreement,
4) it is not a trade secret, since no effort was made to maintain its
secrecy.
I trust I've gotten the gist of it right? :-) (Apologies in advance!)
The bottom line for me is that my access is courtesy of Cornell, and
it sounds like Cornell must have signed a trade secret agreement. If it
were just me I might take the chance, but I surely don't want to cause
waves for Cornell - AT&T is a benefactor!
So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?)
(Please choose one group to send followups to, depending on what you have
to say.)
thanks to all -
garry wiegand garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edubrad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/07/86)
In article <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cornell.edu.arpa writes: > >A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley, >were protected (they had no explicit copyright notices). The interesting >discussion I received went as follows (my summary is at the bottom): > >*********************************************************************** > >>If, however, you found them on your local university computer system, >>and they were not protected, and nobody ever told you >>not to look/copy/redistribute them, then it seems to me that they >>are fair game for redistribution. >> >>The law protecting trade secrets and proprietary information >>requires the owner to take strong measures to protect this information. >>Once it slips out into public knowledge, it is no longer protected. >> >>To my mind, lots of UNIX code has slipped out, since it is readable >>by everyone on lots of university and business computer systems. >>Probably the universities signed non-disclosure agreements >>when they got the source, but AT&T has been a bit negligent in enforcement. >>-- >> Jim Galbiati, GenRad Inc, Production Test Division >> Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass. 01742 >> {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!jwg >> (617) 369-4400 x2459 >> > >SO: > > 1) it can't be copyrighted because it has no explicit notice, > 2) it may be copyrighted anyhow, > 3) it is protected by an AT&T trade secret agreement, > 4) it is not a trade secret, since no effort was made to maintain its > secrecy. > >I trust I've gotten the gist of it right? :-) (Apologies in advance!) > >The bottom line for me is that my access is courtesy of Cornell, and >it sounds like Cornell must have signed a trade secret agreement. If it >were just me I might take the chance, but I surely don't want to cause >waves for Cornell - AT&T is a benefactor! > >So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?) > >(Please choose one group to send followups to, depending on what you have > to say.) > >thanks to all - > >garry wiegand garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu I am amazed. You *know* that these things are somebody else's property. You *know* that they don't want you to take them. Yet people can quibble over whether there were proper copyright notices or if trade secrets were properly enforced. They say that children go through several levels of moral development. If you ask them why they shouldn't steal. Very young children say, "because mommy will punish me." Older children say, "because the law will punish me." Later it's "because it's against the law, and we should follow the law." Finally, it's "because stealing hurts the victim." How many members of the net are still at the child's level. If you see somebody's money on the ground, do you take it if you can get away with it? If it isn't tagged but you know who it belongs to, do you take it? -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
jwg@teddy.UUCP (04/07/86)
In article <518@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>>If, however, you found them on your local university computer system, >>>and they were not protected, and nobody ever told you >>>not to look/copy/redistribute them, ... >>> >>>The law protecting trade secrets and proprietary information >>>requires the owner to take strong measures to protect this information. >>>Once it slips out into public knowledge, it is no longer protected. >>> >>>To my mind, lots of UNIX code has slipped out, since it is readable >>>by everyone on lots of university and business computer systems. >>>Probably the universities signed non-disclosure agreements >>>when they got the source, but AT&T has been a bit negligent in enforcement. >>>--Jim Galbiati >I am amazed. You *know* that these things are somebody else's property. >You *know* that they don't want you to take them. Yet people can quibble >over whether there were proper copyright notices or if trade secrets were >properly enforced. >-- Brad Templeton I am being quoted out of context here!! The question was, could he *legally* redistribute the code. I replied that software can be protected in two ways: by copyright and by trade secret. To achieve copyright protection, the software must contain a copyright notice. To maintain trade secret status, the owner of the trade secret must take steps to protect it's secrecy. The particular software involved appears to fail both tests, since 1) it contains no copyright notice. 2) The original poster was able to read the source for the program without even being aware of whether the software was proprietary or not. That's not very secret. Discussion of the morality of redistributing unprotected software should be sent to net.philosophy or net.religion. -- Jim Galbiati, GenRad Inc, Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass. 01742 {decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!jwg (617) 369-4400 x2459