martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) (02/23/90)
In article <34421@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: [nob relevant stuff deleted] >I just looked; none of these files contain copyright notices. You're happy. Don't hope, that went through unnoticed and someone at AT&T is just sitting down in this very moment and putting the notice in, because of this article ... 1/2:-) > >It'd be silly to copyright those files, because that would >render these tools useless for commercial software development! >You couldn't even distribute the binaries because they're derivative >works (right?) Experience tells, that companies do in fact silly things with copyrighting: 1) Traditionally, '/bin/true' is an empty file. Mine (on ISC 386/ix) contains a copyright notice. (Maybe, AT&T will try to sue me if I ever ship an empty file, because uncovering the source of their 'true'-command ...:-)) 2) IMHO it's against the spirit of UNIX, to have 'limited user' licences, because there is no "natural way" to enforce this. Practical methods vary from vendor to vendor (what is a user? An entry in /etc/passwd? A tty-line? How does UUCP count? What about multiple sessions on Multi-Screens? Under X-Windows?) 3) I quote from my license for my ISC 386/ix: "... [you may] either (a) make one (1) copy of the Software solely for backup purposes or (b) transfer the Software to a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely for backup or archival copies" (no kidding: It seems, that I am not allowed, to make regular backup-copies of the hard disk to several tapes. This *is* silly.) Of course, to me and you and many others, this would make no sense, but I don't think, that we can legally insist on what makes sense to an software-engineer, as soon commercial interests come into play. > >(The Bison skeleton is another story -- the reason it's copyrighted is not >to *prevent* copying, but to *encourage* people to share their (and FSF's!) >code.) I share this view (and if possible my code). -- Martin Weitzel, email: martin@mwtech.UUCP, voice: 49-(0)6151-6 56 83
dgh@unify.uucp (David Harrington) (03/02/90)
In article <659@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes: >In article <34421@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >[nob relevant stuff deleted] >>I just looked; none of these files contain copyright notices. > > >> >>It'd be silly to copyright those files, because that would >>render these tools useless for commercial software development! >>You couldn't even distribute the binaries because they're derivative >>works (right?) > >Experience tells, that companies do in fact silly things with >copyrighting: > >2) IMHO it's against the spirit of UNIX, to have 'limited user' licences, > because there is no "natural way" to enforce this. Practical > methods vary from vendor to vendor (what is a user? An entry in > /etc/passwd? A tty-line? How does UUCP count? What about multiple > sessions on Multi-Screens? Under X-Windows?) It's easy to define and detect a user. Each time a piece of software is invoked, it is invoked by a user. Bump the counter by 1. Techniques can be a license daemon, hard-wired code, or a file. What does UUCP have to do with it? or X? >3) I quote from my license for my ISC 386/ix: > "... [you may] either (a) make one (1) copy of the Software > solely for backup purposes or (b) transfer the Software to > a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely > for backup or archival copies" > (no kidding: It seems, that I am not allowed, to make regular > backup-copies of the hard disk to several tapes. This *is* silly.) Hey, they're doing you a favor. Why do you want to back up the OS regularly? Are you making changes to the kernel, and if so, how? Binary or hex? Not backing it up saves tape, and time. [Small punctuation flame: why do you put commas in random places in, your sentences? It really, makes reading your sentences, hard.] -- David Harrington internet: dgh@unify.UUCP Unify Corporation ...!{csusac,pyramid}!unify!dgh 3870 Rosin Court voice: (916) 920-9092 Sacramento, CA 95834 fax: (916) 921-5340
morrison@ficc.uu.net (Brad Morrison) (03/03/90)
In article <l177spv@unify.uucp> dgh@unify.UUCP (David Harrington) writes: >In article <659@mwtech.UUCP> martin@mwtech.UUCP (Martin Weitzel) writes: >>In article <34421@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> jwl@ernie.Berkeley.EDU.UUCP (James Wilbur Lewis) writes: >>Experience tells, that companies do in fact silly things with >>copyrighting: >>3) I quote from my license for my ISC 386/ix: >> "... [you may] either (a) make one (1) copy of the Software >> solely for backup purposes or (b) transfer the Software to >> a single hard disk provided you keep the original solely >> for backup or archival copies" >> (no kidding: It seems, that I am not allowed, to make regular >> backup-copies of the hard disk to several tapes. This *is* silly.) >Hey, they're doing you a favor. With favours like that, who needs bugs? >Why do you want to back up the OS regularly? 1) In case of disk failure 2) When installing a new disk or disks a) Replacing everything b) Moving part of the system to another mounted filesystem >Are you making changes to the kernel, and if so, how? Possibly; it's not uncommon to link a new kernel. >Binary or hex? Irrelevant. >Not backing it up saves tape, and time. Well, that's the big trade-off. You can save time now by not doing backups, or you can save time later by having backups. -- Brad Morrison (713) 274-5449 | "OK. Come back tomorrow. Ferranti International Controls Corporation | Bring two apples and uunet!ficc!morrison morrison@ficc.uu.net | a hammer."