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
mac@uvacs.UUCP (Alex Colvin) (04/10/86)
> A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley, > were protected ... > > So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?) Rumor has it that GNU has some yacc-like freeware called BISON.
cdshaw@watdragon.UUCP (Chris Shaw) (04/13/86)
In article <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak > >A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley, >were protected (they had no explicit copyright notices). >summary: > > 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!) > >So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?) In some article (Brad Templeton) writes in his usual propertarian manner: > >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. > >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 Yes indeed.. how many members are at such a level to seriously present an inane example of cash lying on the ground as a parallel to software piracy? I do so hate having my intelligence (whatever) insulted in this manner. To get to the point of the above material.. It is abundantly clear that we (the software producer/consumer community) have not come to any agreement whatsoever over a software rights structure. Propertarians such as Mr. Templeton follow a line that can be roughly paraphrased as "It's mine, and I have all rights forever". On the other end of the scale, it seems that the GNU types say "Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like". All one gathers from such representations are what the politics of the proponents are. While no structure can please everyone, somewhere in the middle lies the "true path", and only through clear thought AND NOT POLEMICS can this lingering dispute be resolved. Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath University of Waterloo Bogus as HELL !!!
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (04/14/86)
In article <864@watdragon.UUCP> cdshaw@watdragon.UUCP (Chris Shaw) writes: > >I do so hate having my intelligence (whatever) insulted in this manner. > >To get to the point of the above material.. It is abundantly clear that >we (the software producer/consumer community) have not come to any agreement >whatsoever over a software rights structure. Propertarians such as >Mr. Templeton follow a line that can be roughly paraphrased as >"It's mine, and I have all rights forever". > >On the other end of the scale, it seems that the GNU types say >"Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like". > >All one gathers from such representations are what the politics of the >proponents are. While no structure can please everyone, somewhere in >the middle lies the "true path", and only through clear thought AND NOT >POLEMICS can this lingering dispute be resolved. > >Chris Shaw watmath!watrose!cdshaw or cdshaw@watmath It's not quite as you say. The article I commented on seemed to bicker about whether Yacc had appropriate copyright notices or trade secret enforcement. It treated these issues as the main issues. I think that most people agree that things like copyright notices are simply the legal trappings helpful in enforcing property rights, and they are not the rights themselves. It was this attitude that I objected to. Things like copyright notices are symbols for property rights, they are not the rights themselves. Detatchment of the symbol does not remove the rights it represents. One might conceive of a system where the symbol is the right, and posession is ten tenths of the law, but I don't think anybody would consider it seriously. (I hope not) Personally, I find the lines of property much clearer here than with physical property. Communists might well argue that things like land, water air and natural resources are the property of the commons, and as such no person should own them. But to suggest that a person's thoughts are common property is both repugnant and ludicrous, to be honest. "Repugnant" is, of course, a value judgement on my part, but ludicrous stems from the fact that nothing short of torture can take ideas from a person who does not wish to give them. This is a property right in the most fundamental sense. We can debate about what happens when a person happens to tell somebody else an idea. Mr. Stallman can go on saying that it instantly becomes public property. (In fact, he actually calls it an act of violence not to disclose!) He doesn't seem to think that this will result in a world where creative thought is discouraged. We are fortunate that most disagree with him on that point. You should complete your quote of the GNU philosophy: >"Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like". "and also do what you like with Mr. Templeton's stuff too!" -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
install@kosman.UUCP (Kevin O'Gorman) (04/15/86)
In article <342@uvacs.UUCP>, mac@uvacs.UUCP (Alex Colvin) writes: > > A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley, > > were protected ... > > > > So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?) > > Rumor has it that GNU has some yacc-like freeware called BISON. C-kermit contains a proper subset of lex that is public domain, and available in source form. See appropriate newsgroups - talk to moderator of the moderated one.
hansen@mips.UUCP (Craig Hansen) (04/15/86)
> > A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley, > > were protected ... > > > > So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?) > > Rumor has it that GNU has some yacc-like freeware called BISON. "wart" is a public-domain replacement for lex. It is distributed as part of C-Kermit. -- Craig Hansen | "Evahthun' tastes MIPS Computer Systems | bettah when it ...decwrl!mips!hansen | sits on a RISC"
ken@rochester.ARPA (Ipse dixit) (04/17/86)
>"wart" is a public-domain replacement for lex. >It is distributed as part of C-Kermit. It does not have the full functionality of lex. Also, I believe Kermit sources are not public domain but may be distributed as long as no profit is made from them. Ken -- UUCP: ..!{allegra,decvax,seismo}!rochester!ken ARPA: ken@rochester.arpa Snail: CS Dept., U. of Roch., NY 14627. Voice: Ken!
bet@ecsvax.UUCP (Bennett E. Todd III) (04/17/86)
Someone mentioned wart, which is available free as part of the Columbia
University C-Kermit distribution, as a possible replacement for lex(1).
I thought so too from a first quick glance; when I looked at it more
closely I was disabused of that impression. WART is a finite state
automaton generator, ideal for specifying the state machine to implement
the KERMIT protocol. It is a fine program for what it is designed for,
but it wasn't designed for lexical analysis. The input file
specification is deliberately like that of lex(1); you can use lex(1)
instead of wart. However, where lex(1) files can contain regular
expressions (which lex(1) will compile into recognizers) wart only
matches on single characters. So sad; I had hopes there. Anybody got a
PD lex(1)?
-Bennett
--
Bennett Todd -- Duke Computation Center, Durham, NC 27706-7756; (919) 684-3695
UUCP: ...{decvax,seismo,philabs,ihnp4,akgua}!mcnc!ecsvax!duccpc!betoz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (04/18/86)
In article <523@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >You should complete your quote of the GNU philosophy: >>"Hey, it's free for everyone.. do what you like". >"and also do what you like with Mr. Templeton's stuff too!" I do not see any software you wrote as a part of GNU distribution. Perhaps they do not want to do *anything* with Mr. Templeton's stuff. While this bizzarre discussion continues, someone in the crowd opens up the latest Dr. DOBB'S journal, and guess what !!! SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY SELLING YACC AND LEX !! And for 50$, you get the sources as well !! I did get a copy of this Yacc from a friend who ordered it. [We have source license, so it is in safe hands!!] It turns out that it is the *real* Unix Yacc, as it appeared on an RSX-11 DECUS tape many years ago. [I do not know how it made it into a DECUS tape..] Thus: [a] This guy knows something we don't. Since it is being sold for quite while now, and AT&T did not take any action against DECUS or him, it is a very likely possibility. [b] He doesn't know what he is doing. AT&T will probably sue his pants off, and win the day. But of course, by the time this happens, everyone will be using bison, and will actually get to see the great secret behind a LALR parser generator. AT&T will change its mind, and release YACC & LEX to public- domain, just to compete with GNU. :-) [c] He knows what he is doing. AT&T lawyers will be very dissapointed for losing a lawsuit due to a little-used clause somewhere in the lawbooks. [something about a copyrighted something or another being distributed without permission, and since no action is taken in the last two years, copyright becoming null-and-void] And the debate continues... oZ -- Usenet: [decvax|allegra|linus|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti] FREE SOFTWARE FOUNDATION vs. EMPIRE. Watch for things to come..
rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard) (04/25/86)
In article <359@yetti.UUCP> oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > > While this bizzarre discussion continues, someone in the crowd > opens up the latest Dr. DOBB'S journal, and guess what !!! > SOMEONE IS ACTUALLY SELLING YACC AND LEX !! And for 50$, you get > the sources as well !! > > I did get a copy of this Yacc from a friend who ordered it. > [We have source license, so it is in safe hands!!] > It turns out that it is the *real* Unix Yacc, as it appeared > on an RSX-11 DECUS tape many years ago. [I do not know how > it made it into a DECUS tape..] > > Thus: [a] This guy knows something we don't. > > [b] He doesn't know what he is doing. AT&T will probably > sue his pants off, and win the day. > > [c] He knows what he is doing. [win a suit on a technicality]. [d] Perhaps he as negotiated a Licence for Lex and Yacc ONLY. AT&T could make a small fortune selling itemized licences to various people who want to sell the "pieces" of unix, but not the whole system. There are lots of unix like functions that are not in public domain which could net AT&T royalties of $5/copy in pure royalties. All they have to do is "collect the rent". Lots of "free lance authors" do this. Someone else can go through the expense of marketing the material and the author gets almost as much as if he tried to sell it direct.
gast@ucla-cs.ARPA (David Gast) (05/03/86)
In article <523@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >But to suggest that a person's thoughts are >common property is both repugnant and ludicrous, to be honest. "Repugnant" >is, of course, a value judgement on my part, but ludicrous stems from the >fact that nothing short of torture can take ideas from a person who does >not wish to give them. This is a property right in the most fundamental >sense. Sorry,repungnant moosebreath, but you are wrong. You cannot copyright ideas. these lines are inserted just to keep inews happy. David Gast
greg@utcsri.UUCP (Gregory Smith) (05/06/86)
In article <12359@ucla-cs.ARPA> gast@ucla-cs.UUCP (David Gast) writes: >In article <523@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >>But to suggest that a person's thoughts are >>common property is both repugnant and ludicrous, to be honest. "Repugnant" >>is, of course, a value judgement on my part, but ludicrous stems from the >>fact that nothing short of torture can take ideas from a person who does >>not wish to give them. This is a property right in the most fundamental >>sense. > >Sorry,repungnant moosebreath, but you are wrong. You cannot copyright ideas. Sure, but you can use them as the basis of a patent, can you not? ( Is this bstempleton of the University of Waterloo ? ) -- "Canabee be said2b or not2b anin tire b, if half thabee isnotabee, due2 somain chunt injury?" - Eric's Dilemma ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Greg Smith University of Toronto UUCP: ..utzoo!utcsri!greg
garry@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU (Garry Wiegand) (05/12/86)
As primeval originator of this (greatly-degenerated) topic, I feel an
urge to lay it to rest. The consensus I've heard is that:
1) AT&T probably claims copyright on all of their unix code. It's
technically null and void without the notices, but you would
be well-advised not to get involved.
2) AT&T definitely claims trade-secret licensing on all of their code.
Many/most campus administrators don't bother to protect the source
(I'm aware of at least one site where it's available via anonymous
ftp!), so the trade-secret protection is also of dubious legal value.
But likewise, that's a technicality and you shouldn't want to get
involved. It really *is* their code; I agree that legalities are
merely legalities.
3) There is an (unconfirmed) report that Yacc was once distributed on a
Decus tape. That may be the itchy neuron in my head that led me to
make the original inquiry. I'm really not in the habit of pirating
software! *what never?* *no never!* *what never ??* *(garbled)*
4) I have not communicated with GNU directly about it, but their Bison
program appears to be a Yacc look-alike, without documentation, but
with hints of enhancements (something about quote semantic_parser
end-quote). It is explicitly public-domain. This is what I'm actually
using.
5) On further experiment, Lex turned out to be too absurdly slow; I
hard-coded a token-generator. (I just saw a message going by about
an improved lexer though.)
PS - My original posting had a line at the top saying "Followup-To: net.lang"
It was universally ignored, and as a result poor defenseless newsgroups
have been hearing about /bin/true... curious.
--
garry wiegand (garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu)tp@ndm20 (05/23/86)
>4) I have not communicated with GNU directly about it, but their Bison > program appears to be a Yacc look-alike, without documentation, but > with hints of enhancements (something about quote semantic_parser > end-quote). It is explicitly public-domain. This is what I'm actually > using. I don't believe that any of the GNU code is public domain. It is copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. There are restrictions on its use and re-distribution that are designed to ensure that nobody ever makes any money from it. In particular, as per a note by John Nelson in net.emacs, the parser generated by bison is also copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, so you can not use it in any kind of commercial software. I believe the legality of such a copyright to be rather dubious, but the only way to find out is to go to court, and I do think the Free Software Foundation would be inclined to take it that far. Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers (214)739-4741 Usenet: {seismo!c1east | cbosgd!sun | ihnp4}!convex!infoswx!ndm20!tp CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA
tower@mit-prep.ARPA (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (05/28/86)
> From: tp@ndm20 > Newsgroups: net.lang > Date: 23 May 86 15:52:00 GMT > Nf-From: ndm20!tp May 23 10:52:00 1986 > > > >4) I have not communicated with GNU directly about it, but their Bison > > program appears to be a Yacc look-alike, without documentation, but > > with hints of enhancements (something about quote semantic_parser > > end-quote). It is explicitly public-domain. This is what I'm actually > > using. > > I don't believe that any of the GNU code is public domain. It is > copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. There are restrictions > on its use and re-distribution that are designed to ensure that > nobody ever makes any money from it. The restrictions are mainly designed to require you to always make the source code available to anyone you provide GNU derived software to. Project GNU and the Free Software Foundation have no problem with anyone using GNU to make money, as long as the source code is made available. For example, the Foundation maintains and distributes a list of people willing to provide services to users of GNU software (almost always for a fee). People interested in the Services Directory can inquire of <gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu>. > In particular, as per a note by > John Nelson in net.emacs, the parser generated by bison is also > copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation, so you can not use it in > any kind of commercial software. Wrong. A GNU/bison derived parser can be used in commercial software, as long as the buyers of the software, have the source code of the software made available to them. > ... > > Nathan D. Maier Consulting Engineers > (214)739-4741 > Usenet: {seismo!c1east | cbosgd!sun | ihnp4}!convex!infoswx!ndm20!tp > CSNET: ndm20!tp@smu > ARPA: ndm20!tp%smu@csnet-relay.ARPA -- Len Tower Project GNU of the Free Software Foundation UUCP: {}!mit-eddie!mit-prep!tower INTERNET: tower@prep.ai.mit.edu ORGANIZATION: Project GNU, Free Software Foundation, 1000 Mass. Ave., Cambridge, MA 02138, USA +1 (617) 876-3296 HOME: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA 02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739