joec@u1100a.UUCP (Joe Carfagno) (10/19/85)
A question about liability with respect to access to UNIX source code... Here's the situation. Suppose X University signs a source code license Xref: u1100a net.unix:1516 net.legal:813 with AT&T and Y Company (h/w manufacturer who did the port) and it is the standard one where the school agrees not to divulge source code. Most machines I have seen have read permissions set for "others" for all the source files so anyone can read and copy them. This includes the kernel and commands - the argument being that they are a great way to learn C and UNIX. Suppose a student makes a copy of a key command or the kernel, hacks it up (makes some improvements), and tries to sell it. Is the University liable for breaking the contract, or is the student? Should the source code be protected or should it be open to all users??? Are there any systems out there that protect the source code??? I hope to gather some information and opinions on this subject. Please UNIX mail the responses to me, or post them on the net if an interesting discussion can be started. Thanks in advance. Joe Carfagno ...!u1100a!joec
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (10/21/85)
It is up to the university to honor the terms of its license agreement, which means taking reasonable precaution to protect AT&T's proprietary interest in the UNIX source code. This probably means that they should require an agreement on the part of a student before he is given access to the source code. I don't see how a student could be held liable for the terms of an agreement that he has never heard of. I am of course not a lawyer, but so what.
deg@druhi.UUCP (GillespieD) (10/22/85)
> It is up to the university to honor the terms of its > license agreement, which means taking reasonable > precaution to protect AT&T's proprietary interest > in the UNIX source code. This probably means that > they should require an agreement on the part of a > student before he is given access to the source code. > I don't see how a student could be held liable for > the terms of an agreement that he has never heard of. > When i was at the University of Colorado, I was required to sign an agreement which said that I could look at the source code all i wanted, but could not use it outside the university.
larry@kitty.UUCP (Larry Lippman) (11/04/85)
> A question about liability with respect to access to UNIX source code... > Here's the situation. Suppose X University signs a source code license > Xref: u1100a net.unix:1516 net.legal:813 > with AT&T and Y Company (h/w manufacturer who did the port) and it is > the standard one where the school agrees not to divulge source code. > ... > Should the source code be protected or should it be open to all users??? > Are there any systems out there that protect the source code??? The source code should be protected, and access given only to those students with a need-to-know. Setting a group permission to control source access should be no problem. It should be made clear to anyone with source code acess that the University is LIABLE (as the licensee) for ANY improper divulgence of source code, and that appropriate sanctions will be taken against any student who is caught divulging source code. Most source licenses require that the licensee take steps to protect the confidentiality of the source code, and the University would most likely be held negligent if it were proven that no security steps were taken (which would include SPECIFICALLY warning students that source code is restricted). The above is the generally accepted legal viewpoint. Now, ENFORCEMENT of source code confidentiality is another matter... === Larry Lippman @ Recognition Research Corp., Clarence, New York === === UUCP {decvax,dual,rocksanne,rocksvax,watmath}!sunybcs!kitty!larry === === VOICE 716/741-9185 {rice,shell}!baylor!/ === === FAX 716/741-9635 {AT&T 3510D} ihnp4!/ === === === === "Have you hugged your cat today?" ===
stevens@Shasta.ARPA (11/08/85)
> The source code should be protected, and access given only to those > students with a need-to-know. Setting a group permission to control source > access should be no problem. Thats the attitude. We can't have students learning too much at our academic institutions, can we?! -- Greg Stevens, Computer Systems Laboratory, Stanford University {ucbvax,decvax}!decwrl!shasta!stevens, stevens@su-shasta.ARPA
guy@sun.uucp (Guy Harris) (11/09/85)
> > The source code should be protected, and access given only to those > > students with a need-to-know. Setting a group permission to control > > source access should be no problem. > > Thats the attitude. We can't have students learning too much at our > academic institutions, can we?! Not if those students aren't licensed to learn the things in question, like how the UNIX kernel works. No, that knowledge is not in the public domain; it's owned by AT&T (discussions of whether knowledge can or should be "owned" to net.politics or somesuch, please). Guy Harris