samperi@mancol.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) (05/30/88)
The May issue of UNIX Review reports that AT&T won an out-of-court
settlement in its suit aginst Custom Software Systems, Inc. The
suit claimed that PC/Tools and PC/Spell, both marketed by CSS,
"used aspects of UNIX," but CSS did not purchase a license from
AT&T. Does this mean that it is illegal to market versions of
the standard tools (cp, mv, tar, etc.) for DOS or for other
operating systems, or enhanced versions of these tools for UNIX,
without first buying a license from AT&T?
Does AT&T have exclusive rights to use these utility names? Would it
still be illegal to market tools with similar capabilities that are
named differently?
What exactly does "used aspects of UNIX" mean anyway????
--
Dominick Samperi, Manhattan College, NYC
manhat!samperi@NYU.EDU ihnp4!rutgers!nyu.edu!manhat!samperi
philabs!cmcl2!manhat!samperi ihnp4!rutgers!hombre!samperi
(^ that's an ell) uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperiwnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (05/30/88)
In article <403@mancol.UUCP> samperi@mancol.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >The May issue of UNIX Review reports that AT&T won an out-of-court >settlement in its suit aginst Custom Software Systems, Inc. The >suit claimed that PC/Tools and PC/Spell, both marketed by CSS, >"used aspects of UNIX," but CSS did not purchase a license from >AT&T. Does this mean that it is illegal to market versions of >the standard tools (cp, mv, tar, etc.) for DOS or for other >operating systems, or enhanced versions of these tools for UNIX, >without first buying a license from AT&T? I think we can safely assume that "aspects of UNIX" here refers to rather substantial amounts of UNIX source code, or at least code resembling the real thing sufficiently closely to reasonably assume that it was derived from it. The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. >Does AT&T have exclusive rights to use these utility names? Would it >still be illegal to market tools with similar capabilities that are >named differently? If AT&T had exclusive rights to these utility names, MS would be in trouble over DOS -- cd, mkdir, rmdir etc. Again, there are many other packages out there using these names for functionally similar programs without being bothered by AT&T that I don't think the name or functional definition is the issue. >What exactly does "used aspects of UNIX" mean anyway???? As I said, I'm sure they obtained access to UNIX source and did straight ports, or disguised ports (i.e. change variable names, etc.), or somthing else of similar nature. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 INTERNET: wnp@DESEES.DAS.NET or wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (05/31/88)
In article <102@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: >If AT&T had exclusive rights to these utility names, MS would be in trouble >over DOS -- cd, mkdir, rmdir etc. Again, there are many other packages >out there using these names for functionally similar programs without being >bothered by AT&T that I don't think the name or functional definition is >the issue. I am sure that if AT&T had wanted to (it's a bit late now) they could have gotten trade marks on the more unusual Unix command names. A trade mark is a unique adjective that identifies a product, and I think things like "cd", "mkdir", and "rm" all apply. If anything, Unix is often under fire for having such unusual, sometimes cryptic command names. This proves they are valid trade marks. Of course, nothing that came from an earlier OS (like Multics) could be claimed as a TM, and they would have trouble with a descriptive English name, but many Unix names are not such. But you can rest easy. Because AT&T has made no attempt to stop Microsoft, Mark Williams, Mortis Kern and several others from using these names, they have given up what rights they might have had, in my non-lawyer opinion. If you want to protect an operating system, function library or language from cloning, the easist way is probably with trade marks. Unix, by the way, is a trade mark of AT&T Bell Labs, for its brand of multi-tasking operating system. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473
toma@tekgvs.UUCP (06/02/88)
In article <1697@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes: >I am sure that if AT&T had wanted to (it's a bit late now) they could >have gotten trade marks on the more unusual Unix command names. [...] >This proves they are valid trade marks. But they would have to protect the trademark by not not using them in a generic sense. That means calling it "the cd brand change directory command". They have to insure the commands do not fall into common use. This means one should not say "cee dee to slash bin" but rather "use the cd brand change directory command to change to the directory slash bin". Or perhaps even ".. the directory slash bin brand binaries directory" if they had the foresight to trademark the directory names as well! Personally, I think some of the names are so bad no one in their right mind should copy them. >Unix, by the way, is a trade mark of AT&T Bell Labs, for its brand of >multi-tasking operating system. This says it all! Tom Almy toma@tekgvs.TEK.COM
chuck@hotlr.ATT ( C J Luciano hotld) (06/03/88)
> The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more > significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI > first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me > he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source > code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in > the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. I believe that AT&T would not be the one who should be concerned here since VI is licensed by AT&T from University of California at Berkeley. Therefore it's UCB's problem.
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/06/88)
In article <395@hotlr.ATT> chuck@hotlr.UUCP (54316 - C J Luciano hotld) writes: > > > The reason I say this is that there have been other, commercially more > > significant, UNIX-lookalikes which AT&T did not bother. Also, when PC/VI > > first made its appearance, a friend of mine in the Boston area told me > > he had heard from a friend who had access to both UNIX and PC/VI source > > code that the sources resembled each other so closely, down to flaws in > > the coding style, that he was conviced PC/VI was a rip-off. > >I believe that AT&T would not be the one who should be concerned here since >VI is licensed by AT&T from University of California at Berkeley. Therefore >it's UCB's problem. However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
gnews@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo ) (06/14/88)
In article <109@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: > ... > However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, > which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised > to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. Well, the story I heard, and it may have been from Mark Horton, who worked on the thing for two or three years after Bill Joy moved on to other projects at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and dropped in a whole new entity, throwing away everything they had to begin, this is just the way the lawyers interpreted the letter of the agreement. Sigh. -- Gary S. Trujillo {ihnp4,linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {cirl,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst -- Gary S. Trujillo {ihnp4,linus,bbn,m2c}!spdcc!gnosys!gst Somerville, Massachusetts {cirl,ima,stech,wjh12}!gnosys!gst
samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) (06/14/88)
CIn article <36@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes: C>In article <109@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: C>> ... C>> However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, C>> which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised C>> to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. C> C>at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT C>CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started C>by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and I started this discussion, and I'm not sure that the original question is being addressed: the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been the issue. The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" in describing the functionality of the tools? Does MKS have a license from AT&T? -- Dominick Samperi, NYC samperi@acf8.NYU.EDU samperi@marob.MASA.COM cmcl2!phri!marob uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperi (^ ell)
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/15/88)
In article <308@marob.MASA.COM> samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >I started this discussion, and I'm not sure that the original question is >being addressed: the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS >because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been >the issue. The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) >functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), >then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" >in describing the functionality of the tools? Does MKS have a license from >AT&T? If they did, I am sure AT&T would require them to display a copyright notice to that effect somewhere. However, all their disks, manuals, etc, only show a MKS copyright. There are also numerous other examples of people developing functional clones of UNIX -- including the same names for commands -- without AT&T taking any action: Regulus, Coherent, Minix, etc. There are numerous PD programs which duplicate UNIX functionality, and which AT&T is surely aware of because they are distributed over this network: PD Tar, AFIO (a cpio clone), GNU AWK, etc. No action was taken against any of these by AT&T. In fact, John Gilmore had a letter from AT&T's legal dept. stating that UUSLAVE, which is functionally equivalent to uucico, did not contain any AT&T code and did not infringe on their rights. That's why I am not sure that the CSS case has the impact Dominick hints at above. And finally, as I said in my original reply, I heard from someone in the orbit of the CSS principals that they were almost certain that CSS had had access to VI source code, and that was right after PC-VI first appeared. Since ATT&T and CSS settled out of court, there is no knowing what AT&T would have ended up showing and arguing in court, unless CSS violates the terms of the settlement and the thing comes to trial after all. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (06/22/88)
In article <308@marob.MASA.COM>, samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) writes: > . . . the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS > because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been > the issue. It's my understanding that source license and copyright violations were the problem, not "look and feel". Ideas can't be copywritten. They *can* be patented. (Trivia question: what idea from the early T&R UNIX(R) operating system *was* patented? Answer below.) > The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) > functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), > then can I use the same program names? I can't think of any objection. Those names can't be copywritten, either. They could have been trademarked, but they weren't. (I can see it all now: "grep is a trademark of AT&T":-) > And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" in describing the functionality > of the tools? UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T. I don't know exactly what restrictions that puts on you. (AT&T's official policy is that the word "UNIX" is an adjective, so rather than "UNIX-like", if you use the "U" word, you should say "UNIX system-like". No, repeat, no comment.) > Does MKS have a license from AT&T? Not so far as I know. What's to license? The look and feel of grep? So far as I know, MKS didn't port UNIX system code; they reimplemented the tools. AT&T officially neither approves or disapproves of MKS's work. (Some of us sure do appreciate it, though.) -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. I'm not a member of the bar; for legal advice, consult a lawyer. AT&T was awarded a patent for Dennis Ritchie's invention of the set user ID and set group ID bits.
txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) (06/24/88)
A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? Timothy Reed ...uunet!wash08!txr98
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/25/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? Of course not.
kai@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Irwin) (06/25/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP>, txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: > A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies > of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS > didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > > Timothy Reed > ...uunet!wash08!txr98 Hardly, AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill facility (6000+ employees) has (had?) a PC/VI site license from CSS. Some how I don't think that it really matters if a company uses a product or not, I mean look at Microsoft and Apple, I'm sure Microsoft owns more than a few copies of the etch-a-sketch emulator or what ever it is they call the Mac/Lisa operating system. Although I s'pose that's backwards though, hmmm. Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IH 3D206 (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/25/88)
In article <8152@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >>If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > >Of course not. And I bet that there were (are) a lot of AT&T employees using CSS' PC-VI and possibly PC-TOOLS and SPELL. One even told me that he had purchased his copy of PC-VI from the Computer Center at Bell Labs in NJ. That didn't keep AT&T from pursuing CSS. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) (06/28/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: > A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies > of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS > didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? 1) NO, it doesn't imply approval of legality, it just implies individuals think it's a useful package. 2) Either a) <vendor> has rewritten their utilities from scratch, and therefore doesn't need a license, or b) <vendor> has a proper UNIX operating system (source) license, and is properly following the licensing rules for binary code sales (e.g. paying royalties), or c) <vendor> has either ripped off source or failed to follow the rules in reselling binary products derived from that source. As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course), a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license (just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses), b) MKS has ported some UNIX tools and reimplemented others and is presumably following the rules for the products they use, c) CSS is alleged to have ripped off stuff (that's for a lawsuit to decide, and I don't know the facts.) a) "Z", from Manx Software is a pure reimplementation, but c) various people have ripped it off from *them* and distributed it on BBSes. (If you have a copy and haven't bought it from them, either destroy it, and encourage others to do so, or buy a curent copy which is *MUCH* better than the ancient wimpy version you're using now.) -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs Rnmail: /usr/wcs/.signature: not found
alex@mks.UUCP (Alex White) (06/29/88)
In article <166@skep2.ATT.COM>, wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) writes: > b) MKS has ported some UNIX tools and reimplemented others and is presumably > following the rules for the products they use, Since several people on the net have commented about and questioned the origin of our products, I feel we should reply. I am a director of MKS, so you can take this as official and stop wondering. The MKS Toolkit, MKS Awk and MKS Vi contain NO, and I repeat NO, part whatsoever of UNIX. They are all complete re-implementations. We have licensed MKS RCS from Walter Tichey and paid a licensing fee. The parts of RCS that normally rely on UNIX code [diff, diff3] are our own code. We are distributers for SoftQuad Publishing Software and have ported it to DOS. Softquad Publishing Software is the official new release of AT&T Documenters Workbench, and hence does indeed contain licensed software from AT&T. The DOS Release of SQPS contains several utility programs which come from the MKS Toolkit.
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (06/29/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies >of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS >didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > Never assume that any one part of a large organization even knows, much less approves, of what another department, section, group or whatever is doing. keith
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (07/03/88)
In article <166@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,) writes: |As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course), |a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license | (just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses), Minix is indeed a pure implementation. It is different not only at the source code level, but quite different at the architecture level. This is not necessarily good (there are many things that are better done differently) but it's a nice teaching tool, which is what Andy T. wrote it for. I'd rather have used it than XINU, which is interesting in design and implementation but works on that nasty Digital hardware :-). jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu
mark@cbnews.ATT.COM (Mark Horton) (07/05/88)
In article <36@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
< Well, the story I heard, and it may have been from Mark Horton, who worked
< on the thing for two or three years after Bill Joy moved on to other projects
< at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT
< CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started
< by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and
< dropped in a whole new entity, throwing away everything they had to begin,
< this is just the way the lawyers interpreted the letter of the agreement.
I don't normally read these newsgroups, but this message was brought to
my attention.
The fact is that somewhere around 5% or 10% of the code in vi is really
ed. The buffer management mechanism, the ex command interface, and the
file I/O stuff, for example, are pretty much unchanged from ed. For
this reason, vi and ex are covered by the AT&T UNIX license, and cannot
be considered public domain.
Mark Horton