mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (03/20/87)
The other day I happened upon something QUITE interesting that I think might spark some discussion. (We have a source license here for Sun UNIX, so don't bother having your lawyers call me). Anyhow, I noticed that THE SOURCE FOR UUCP HAS NO COPYRIGHT NOTICES IN IT except for in some of the more recent utilities such as uuencode and uudecode. "Hmmm.... very funny, thinks I..." I called one of my friends who has source license for a dual-port OS, including AT&T source and BSD, and asked him the same question. Same answer. Noplace (unless grep is broken) were the magic words 'copyright' to be found. (again, except for the newer tools). uucico, uuxqt, and all those goodies were dated but not copyrighted. In fact, I took a look at some old old hardcopy another fellow I know has, and there were no copyright notices in version 7 either. I contacted the offices of AT&T (the email address fcp@alice) that was given by the fellow from the licensing dept during the recent 'public domain yacc' scandal. I asked them what the deal is. I got a note saying that "we'll get back in touch with you". My questions are as follows, and I invite all comments and answers from the net: 1) what *REALLY* is the copyright status of uucp ? 2) regardless of the answer to the above, what does a total lack of copyright notices mean ? 3) can someone be held legally at fault for, in all good faith, assuming that the global abscence of copyright information indicates that the code is public-domain, and (for example) posting it to the net ? The last comment there is playing the devil's advocate, but I think you see my point. Those of us who frequent the grey areas of bulletin boards know all to well the *REAL* status of anything that doesn't carry a copyright notice. Why is uucp different other than the fact that AT&T's lawyers outnumber the populace of Lichtenstien ? I invite discussion of this, and encourage those of you who have source licenses to check your sources and let me know what you find. "Quick, Jeeves, my asbestos underwear !!" --mjr(); -- "It is better to shred the bugger than to bugger the shredder." -ancient doltic proverb.
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (03/21/87)
In article <480@gouldsd.UUCP>, mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: > > The other day I happened upon something QUITE interesting that I > think might spark some discussion. (We have a source license here for Sun > UNIX, so don't bother having your lawyers call me). Anyhow, I noticed that > THE SOURCE FOR UUCP HAS NO COPYRIGHT NOTICES IN IT except for in some of > the more recent utilities such as uuencode and uudecode. Up until very recently you never found a copyright notice in UNIX software. UNIX is not protected by copyright, but rather by trade secret. In your agreement with AT&T (or Western in the old days), you agreed not to divulge the UNIX source code nor information on how it operates. Despite the lack of copyright notices in UUCP, it is still AT&T proprietary. -Ron
ddb@viper.UUCP (David Dyer-Bennet) (03/23/87)
In article <480@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: >3) can someone be held legally at fault for, in all good faith, assuming > that the global abscence of copyright information indicates that > the code is public-domain, and (for example) posting it to the net ? > > The last comment there is playing the devil's advocate, but I think >you see my point. Those of us who frequent the grey areas of bulletin boards People only have access to the AT&T uucp source under an explicit license agreement, which they would be violating if they posted the source to the net. Copyright isn't the only way to protect computer software! In fact, copyright makes it certain that the code WILL eventually fall into the public domain; it may be that they have deliberately NOT copyrighted the code for that reason. -- David Dyer-Bennet UUCP: ...{amdahl,ihnp4,rutgers}!{meccts,dayton}!viper!ddb UUCP: ...ihnp4!umn-cs!starfire!ddb Fido: sysop of fido 14/341, (612) 721-8967
geoff@desint.UUCP (03/23/87)
Keywords: In article <694@brl-sem.ARPA> ron@brl-sem.ARPA (Ron Natalie <ron>) writes: > Up until very recently you never found a copyright notice in UNIX software. > UNIX is not protected by copyright, but rather by trade secret. In your > agreement with AT&T (or Western in the old days), you agreed not to > divulge the UNIX source code nor information on how it operates. Despite > the lack of copyright notices in UUCP, it is still AT&T proprietary. I'd decided to keep my trap shut about this during the recent Yacc controversy, but since Ron's mentioned it I thought I'd toss in my two cents' worth. The interesting thing about trade secrets is that if they ever get publicly exposed, even if it's through malice, they are effictively lost. The interesting thing about copyrights is that, if you can prove that the copyrighted material was ever published WITHOUT a copyright notice, you can't ever claim copyright. I will leave you to draw your own own conclusions about Yacc on the DECUS tape. You ain't gonna catch ME prodding the AT&T lion. WARNING: I'm not a lawyer. If you take actions based solely on the legal opinions in this article, you are an idiot and I do not accept responsibility. -- Geoff Kuenning {hplabs,ihnp4}!trwrb!desint!geoff
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (03/24/87)
In article <480@gouldsd.UUCP> mjranum@gouldsd.UUCP (Marcus J Ranum) writes: > The other day I happened upon something QUITE interesting ... >THE SOURCE FOR UUCP HAS NO COPYRIGHT NOTICES IN IT except for in some of >the more recent utilities such as uuencode and uudecode. The legal advice I've received over the years indicates: The lack of copyright notices is essentaially irrelevent. The source licence under which you received the code protects it as a *trade secret,* which means that it contains "intellectual property" of the licensor and that it may be disclosed only in accordance with the terms of the license. The original Unix sources were protected only as trade secrets. It is only recently that vendors have been adding copyrights to the source as well. Copyright does not imply anything about trade secret, i.e. trade secret items may or may not be copyrighted as well. Nor does the lack of copyright notice imply lack of copyright. I don't remember the details, but recent (well relatively recent - it was within the last 10 years) legislation has allowed for copyrighting of materials even if no notice is given. 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."
ed@mtxinu.UUCP (03/24/87)
>The interesting thing about trade secrets is that if >they ever get publicly exposed, even if it's through malice, they are >effictively lost. This is not necessarily true. It depends on the nature of the exposure and the particulars of the contracts. > The interesting thing about copyrights is that, if >you can prove that the copyrighted material was ever published WITHOUT >a copyright notice, you can't ever claim copyright. This is no longer true. Recent changes in copyright legislation have made it possible to claim copyright even after a work has been released without any copyright notice. -- 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."