info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (07/01/84)
Date: Sat, 30-Jun-84 04:35:14 PDT From: Lauren Weinstein <uw-beaver!vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Subject: Unix sources -- hangman --> licensed Unix source code? To: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM There is apparently some concern within AT&T entities which read INFO-MAC regarding the "hangman" sources that an INFO-MAC person recently made available to the readership of this list. I might point out that as far as I know, those hangman sources are covered by the Unix source license agreement, as is the word list that the same person decided to distribute. The original Unix hangman game with which I am familiar (and on which most other versions were based) was indeed licensed code, and I know for a fact that the word list is definitely considered to be licensed as well. Unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, please be warned that the use or distribution of those materials, unless you have the appropriate Unix licenses for THE MACHINE ON WHICH YOU ARE USING THOSE MATERIALS (i.e. your MAC!) could result in serious legal action by AT&T. In general, it is NOT legal to just run around porting anyone's sources or other materials and freely use/distribute them, unless you are ABSOLUTELY certain that they do not contain materials which were part of licensed software. --Lauren--
info-mac@utcsrgv.UUCP (info-mac) (07/04/84)
Date: 3 July 1984 03:43-EDT From: Jerry E. Pournelle <uw-beaver!POURNE@MIT-MC> Subject: Unix sources -- hangman --> licensed Unix source code? To: vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX Cc: INFO-MAC@SUMEX-AIM In-Reply-To: Msg of Sat 30-Jun-84 04:35:14 PDT from Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren at RAND-UNIX.ARPA> Do you not go too far in your generalization? I would imagine that just how much of what can be restricted how depends on what law one relies on for protection. After teh Franklin/APple case it's likely that courts will hold that object code as well as sources are protected by copyright; but copyright has got some severe restrictions and limits built right into the law. License law can't be applied to innocent use by third parties. Posession of copyrighted materials can be ambiguous. The whole matter is unsettled. Agreed, one is best off being careful; but "contains materials which were part of licensed software" may be a bit broad. Just what is subject to copyright in computer code? We haven't really settled that in literary law, although we do have some cases; in softare and computer code it is considerably more ambiguous. How many lines must be identical? If not identical, but accomplish the same thing, how many points of similarity constitute infringement? (IE using the same code but putting results in different registers and different memory locations would probably be an infringement...) OH Well. It will make a great column think piece.