psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (06/22/88)
< If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > In article <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, nnpeterson@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Neil N. Peterson) writes: > Has anyone out there ported the unix source for Vi (posted a short while ago) > to the IBM PC/XT? The source to the vi screen editor is copywritten material. AT&T licenses this source code to various companies and universities, but this license does *not* allow further distribution. Anyone posting or otherwise giving the source to anyone not covered by their organization's license is in a lot of trouble personally, and has just gotten his or her organization into a lot of trouble. Ditto for anyone who takes the source, ports it to another environment, and distributes the result without working things out with AT&T. < ENTER DISCLAIMER MODE > It's my understanding that Custom Software Systems' PC/VI was a port from AT&T source code. They were passing off AT&T's program as if it were their own. The disagreement between CSS and AT&T was based on license and copyright violation, *not* look and feel. I believe that Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a stand, too, right? Look, there are people who think that all software should be freely distributed. They're acting responsibly on that belief (writing lots of potentially useful software, with the only restriction being you can't restrict further distribution). Then there are people who think that software should be a business you can make a profit off of. They provide value for the money, or they don't last in the marketplace. AT&T is in this category. AT&T has put lots of resources into the UNIX operating system, and is putting even more in now. As a result, AT&T (by the current laws in effect) deserves compensation for their effort. Then there are people who think that software should be distributed freely (especially to themselves), no matter who developed it or has legal rights to it. I have nothing polite to say about such people. Yes, at one point, the Regents of the University of California had the rights to the vi source code. One, they don't any longer, for whatever reason. Two, would you really feel better ripping off UC? < LEAVE DISCLAIMER MODE > -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. Some of the above opinions reflect those of my employer. UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of AT&T.
romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) (06/24/88)
In article <1382@lznv.ATT.COM>, psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: > < If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T > has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a > stand, too, right? About that "taking no stand is taking a stand too" business: Well, actually, I think this may not be the case. I thought I heard somewhere that IBM is now, after all these years, talking about trying to extract some kind of licensing fees or penalties from everyone who ever cloned an IBM PC. Despite having said nothing for years, the theory is that they may well be within their rights in doing so (I happen to think they're not, what the hell do I know, I'm no lawyer). I seem to remember reading this about a month ago. I don't recall the details; can someone back me up on this, or did I just dream it? -Antonio Romero romero@confusion.princeton.edu
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (06/27/88)
In article <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, Neil N. Peterson writes: > Has anyone out there ported the unix source for Vi (posted a short while ago) > to the IBM PC/XT? to which Paul S. R. Chisholm in article <1382@lznv.ATT.COM> replies: > The source to the vi screen editor is copywritten material. I think Mr. Peterson meant the Public Domain Vi clone "Stevie" that was posted to comp.sources.unix a few weeks ago when he mentioned "Vi".
robert@pvab.UUCP (Robert Claeson) (06/27/88)
In article <244@pvab.UUCP>, Robert Claeson (that's me) writes: > I think Mr. Peterson meant the Public Domain Vi clone "Stevie" that was > posted to comp.sources.unix a few weeks ago when he mentioned "Vi". I made a typo on this. The stevie source was posted to comp.sources.misc, not comp.sources.unix.
las@apr.UUCP (Larry Shurr) (06/28/88)
In article <2561@mind.UUCP> romero@mind.UUCP (Antonio Romero) writes: >In article <1382@lznv.ATT.COM>, psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) writes: >> Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T >> has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a >> stand, too, right? >I thought I heard somewhere that IBM is now, after all these years, talking >about trying to extract some kind of licensing fees or penalties from >everyone who ever cloned an IBM PC. Despite having said nothing for years, >the theory is that they may well be within their rights in doing so (I happen >to think they're not, what the hell do I know, I'm no lawyer). >I seem to remember reading this about a month ago. I don't recall the >details; can someone back me up on this, or did I just dream it? IBM has asserted that it intends to collect 5%-of-revenues royalty from clone makers who have used IBM patents without liscense to do so. Now I'm no lawyer, judge or court, but there is a legal doctrine called "laches" which may mitigate such claims. The term refers to negligence or delay in asserting a legal claim. Whether or not laches will permit a clone maker with an x-wing fighter legal budget to defeat IBM's Imperial Star Cruiser legal department is another matter. regards, Larry -- Who: Larry A. Shurr (cbosgd!osu-cis!apr!las or try {cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbcp1!las) What: "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Where: _The Portrait of Dorian Grey_ - Oscar Wilde Disclaimer: The above is not necessarily the opinion of APR or any APR client.
brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) (06/28/88)
IBM has been *SAYING* for quite some time that they intend to protect their intellectual property rights, and telling people not to do so. What they haven't been doing, until now, is demanding and suing. But IBM is not a clever company, and they have covered their ass. The people who did violate IBM patents and copyrights did so by taking a gamble that they wouldn't be sued, and so far they were winning. So far, but that's business. -- Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. -- Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473