tecot@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Edward Tecot) (06/29/85)
Gosling Emacs was written under BSD4.1, so AT&T has no claim whatsoever.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (06/30/85)
In article <466@cmu-cs-k.ARPA> tecot@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Edward Tecot) writes: >Gosling Emacs was written under BSD4.1, so AT&T has no claim whatsoever. This is wrong. All BSD (2.8,2.9,4.1,4.2,4.3,etc) is derived from ATT licensed code. An ATT license is a prerequisite to running BSD. If Gosling wrote emacs on a machine with an educational Unix license, it would appear he is violating his agreement with ATT to make the results of work done on such a site freely available. That does not necessarily give RMS the right to distribute Gosling's code, however. -- Time flys like an arrow. Fruit flies like bananas. Phil Ngai +1 408 749 5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
tecot@cmu-cs-k.ARPA (Edward Tecot) (06/30/85)
I was unaware of the relation between AT&T and BSD Unix. This probably belongs on net.unix, but if AT&T has so much control over BSD Unix (and knows about its benefits), why do they continue to push the bogosity known as System "what job control?" V.
mjc@cmu-cs-cad.ARPA (Monica Cellio) (06/30/85)
The right to USE a piece of code does not grant the right to DISTRIBUTE (or even look at!) the source. Commercial software sellers grant you a licence to use their system, rather than selling you the system, for just this reason. What this probably implies (I'm not a lawyer either...) is that Gosling has to make the compiled program available for use (if this is what the AT&T license agreement says). This does not grant you permission to look at the source, much less use it in a system of your own. -Dragon -- UUCP: ...ucbvax!dual!lll-crg!dragon ARPA: monica.cellio@cmu-cs-cad or dragon@lll-crg