ignatz@chinet.UUCP (Dave Ihnat) (03/15/88)
I can't say how many times over the years, I've been asked "is it OK to use the source to 'csh'? I heard it was written at Berkley, and doesn't belong to AT&T." Usually immediately countered with "No, it's got old AT&T V6 shell code in it, so it's still licensed." And, usually, "Yeah, but it's got so little that it's a derived work, and not really AT&T any more." For that matter, substitute 'vi' for 'csh', and 'ed' for 'V6 shell', and it's yet another great question. Well, I'm tired of it. Actually, this is a call for an *authoritative* answer to the question of Berkley source code. Specifically, over the years I've heard the case stated many times; and it's eventually ironed out to: 1) No BSD code that contains any licensed AT&T code may be considered for redistribution except to legal AT&T license holders. (Well, this is only logical.) 2) Code that is purely developed at Berkley is copyrighted by the Board of Regents of the University of California. As a public institution, supported by tax monies, this code is, indeed, freely available to all and sundry (possibly with the addition of a nominal fee for copying and distribution costs.) (This, too, makes sense; similar to the huge archive of NASA-developed code.) 3) The derived work argument is only applicable to code that is to be protected under copyright laws; proprietary agreements are to be handled through the courts and individual lawsuits, which would tend to cause the licensee (in this case, UCB) to be *most* cautious in claiming full ownership. However, most people seem to agree that it may take some careful squinting to see some of the old, old bytes of V6 code in at least 'csh' and 'ex/vi'. Unfortunately, the fact is that the law isn't always logical; it's often simply the fact that whoever has the most lawyers, wins. SO THE QUESTION is: Are the above, in fact, the truth? If not, what *IS* the truth? And the truth by whose lights--Berkley legal staff, or AT&T's legal staff? Notice the important issue here--I Don't Want Opinion or Guesses, no matter how Well Intentioned, from the general public. I'm asking this here for two reasons; first, I suspect I'm not the only one who is an Inquiring Mind who Wants to Know. And secondly, if enough of us clamor for an honest, full interpretation, perhaps the legal types at Berkley and AT&T will, indeed, give us a fair reading of the legal tea-leaves sometime this century. As an open comment to the legal types of both institutions: Please, don't take the 'simple legal' approach: NO. Too often, because it is simply safer to do so, the answer that will be given is "it's a grey area, so let's [not touch it | push it as far as we can to see what we can get away with]" This is your chance to impress us, the technological masses, with your depth and breadth of knowledge of your respective organizations' legal obligations. Let us use that which is legally permissible, and avoid that which is both legally and ethically questionable. (I hate to say it, but if you haven't already done so, this may well necessitate deciding between yourselves--and, I strongly suggest, some informed technical computer scientists--which code is, and isn't, contaminated with AT&T licensed stuff before saying anything here.) For my part, I'd be willing to work as a go-between; perhaps under the auspices of the relatively new Chicago chapter of /usr/group, if it is suggested and approved by the membership of said organization. My home telephone number, electronic, and land mail address follow. (This is purely to divorce this discussion from my employer; I'm asking this as an individual.) Please, this time we're asking you guys to let us know your stand *before* it's time to start swinging in court. Don't let this disappear into the cracks of the network. Thanks in advance, Dave Ihnat (312) 784-4544 ...!homebru!ignatz 4414 N. Malden Ave. Chicago, IL 60640