guy%gorodish@Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (03/23/87)
>I was just surprised that everything in 99% of the source I've ever seen >often has more copyright lines than actual code, and here uucp has none. Some very early UNIX release (V5?) may have had copyright notices in the source. The V6 release had some comments at the front of the form /* */ that may have been fossils left behind when the copyright notices were removed. I heard a claim that there was some conflict between trade-secret protection and copyright that required AT&T to remove the copyright notices from the code. Not being an expert on copyright law, I neither believe nor disbelieve this claim. Does anybody know (first-hand, please) whether this was the case or not? > It was pointed out to me that the licensing agreement covers the >entire distribution as trade secrets, but I don't see how that works when >public domain source is included with proprietary source (for example Mike >Muus' "ping" program). AT&T doesn't distribute "ping". Berkeley distributes "ping". Everything on BSD distributions that comes from AT&T source code (and yes, kids, this includes large chunks of the kernel, even in 4.3BSD) is protected by trade secret. > Considering the amazingly touchy attitude lots of people on the net >have shown towards having carefully worded copyright notices in EVERYTHING, >I was (and still am) suprised there is nothing in uucp. There are few copyright notices in the source to UNIX as distributed by AT&T prior to S5R3. In S5R3, most, if not all, source - including UUCP source - has a copyright notice attached to it: /* Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T */ /* All Rights Reserved */ /* THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T */ /* The copyright notice above does not evidence any */ /* actual or intended publication of such source code. */ *This* one, in fact, came from the "gio.c" module in the UUCP source. The bottom line is The fact that there are no copyright notices in UUCP may be surprising, but it isn't significant. If you think you can give UUCP out, just because some versions didn't have copyrights at the front, think again. You can't do it. Period. End of discussion. If you want to continue the discussion, I suggest you continue it with AT&T's lawyers. I'm sure they'll be happy to set you straight on this....
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (03/24/87)
>> It was pointed out to me that the licensing agreement covers the >>entire distribution as trade secrets, but I don't see how that works when >>public domain source is included with proprietary source (for example Mike >>Muus' "ping" program). > >AT&T doesn't distribute "ping". Berkeley distributes "ping". >Everything on BSD distributions that comes from AT&T source code (and >yes, kids, this includes large chunks of the kernel, even in 4.3BSD) >is protected by trade secret. The legal advice I've recieved over the years says: Almost, but not quite. In order to cover their collective asses and not become embroiled in controversies over whether or not any particular code was AT&T proprietary, the Regents of the University of California, in the license *they* require of all recipients of BSD tapes, have the licensee agree that *all* of the material on the tape is to be used in accordance with the terms of the licensee's AT&T license. This means that BSD licensees are obligated to treat all of the material on the BSD tape *as if* it were AT&T trade secret information. Ping may well be in the public domain. But if the only copy you have of it is one obtained from the BSD tape, then it's covered by the license. If you receive one from elsewhere - without restrictions - then you may be free to redistribute it. Consult a lawyer for real advice. -- Ed Gould mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA 94710 USA {ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed +1 415 644 0146 "A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."
heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <15442@sun.uucp> guy@sun.UUCP (Guy Harris) writes: >There are few copyright notices in the source to UNIX as distributed >by AT&T prior to S5R3. In S5R3, most, if not all, source - including >UUCP source - has a copyright notice attached to it: To give some idea of how far they've gone, I'm going to take a real chance here, and post the *ENTIRE* source to SVR3 /bin/true. I don't have a source license at this site. The /bin/true source is distributed to binary licensees. Here it is: ----- cut here ----- # Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T # All Rights Reserved # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T # The copyright notice above does not evidence any # actual or intended publication of such source code. #ident "@(#)true:true.sh 1.4" ----- cut here ----- In case you haven't already noticed, there isn't really any source code in there! (At least /bin/false has an executable line!) Looks like AT&T is copyrighting blank lines. Let's be real careful about the blank lines we use in our code. :-) (Defend us from over-zealous lawyers!) -- Ron Heiby, heiby@mcdchg.UUCP Moderator: mod.newprod & mod.os.unix Motorola Microcomputer Division (MCD), Schaumburg, IL "There are only two of them that I think are idiots." Brian Reid
cds@atelabs.UUCP (03/26/87)
[ major portion of SV /bin/true "source" deleted - cds ] > >#ident "@(#)true:true.sh 1.4" Does anyone else find it amusing in the extreme that it took someone (or perhaps a team) four revisions to come up with this "source"? -- Dave Shanks ..!tektronix!tessi!atelabs!cds AT&E Laboratories cds@atelabs.UUCP 1400 NW Compton Suite 300 (503) 690-2000 Beaverton, OR 97006
kehres@styx.UUCP (03/28/87)
In article <213@atelabs.UUCP> cds@atelabs.UUCP (David Shanks) writes:
+ [ major portion of SV /bin/true "source" deleted - cds ]
+ >
+ >#ident "@(#)true:true.sh 1.4"
+
+ Does anyone else find it amusing in the extreme that it took someone (or
+ perhaps a team) four revisions to come up with this "source"?
Not really. Many times revisions of source code differ by items other
than just the executable portion of the code. Copyrights, what string
formats, disclaimers, and comments are examples.
Tim Kehres
Control Data Corporation / Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
----------------------------------------------------------------
UUCP: {lll-crg,ihnp4!lll-lcc}!styx!kehres
ARPA: kehres@lll-tis-b.ARPA
AT&T: (415) 463-6852csg@pyramid.UUCP (03/28/87)
In article <213@atelabs.UUCP> cds@atelabs.UUCP (David Shanks) writes: >Does anyone else find it amusing in the extreme that it took someone (or >perhaps a team) four revisions to come up with this "source"? There is a lot of code that is identical from pre-SV days through to SVR3, but with incremental changes in the SCCS revisions anyway. It appears that AT&T-IS updates the revision codes on a lot of things with every new release, whether the code changed or not. <csg>
zap@draken.UUCP (04/11/87)
[comp.mail.uucp deleted from Newsgroups-line and comp.emacs added] In article <319@mtxinu.UUCP> ed@mtxinu.UUCP (Ed Gould) writes: > [...] the Regents of the University of California, >in the license *they* require of all recipients of BSD tapes, have >the licensee agree that *all* of the material on the tape is to be used >in accordance with the terms of the licensee's AT&T license. This means >that BSD licensees are obligated to treat all of the material on the >BSD tape *as if* it were AT&T trade secret information. Tell me it isn't so. Or are the Bezerkloids deliberately violating the GNU "copyleft"? They really shouldn't distribute GNU Emacs on the 4.3 tape if their license is worded like that. Or better yet, fix their license! Svante Lindahl UUCP: }seismo,mcvax{!enea!kth!zap Internet: zap%ttds.uucp@seismo.css.gov