fcp@alice.UUCP (02/25/87)
AT&T SOFTWARE
Recently, there have been several comments and opinions given on this network
regarding AT&T protecting its source code software, and what rights AT&T
retains if someone exposes the software to unauthorized persons. Please be
aware that AT&T investigates each suspected violation of its source code
software agreements. We work diligently to protect our proprietary interests.
When unauthorized source code exposures are made, it is a result of someone
violating an AT&T agreement. Because the code was exposed does not make it
public domain, and the proprietary rights still remain with AT&T.
Please be aware we are tracing down a recent exposure of some of our
source code on this network, and we have, and will continue to take,
corrective action.
Questions regarding source code software licensing should be referred to
1-800-828-UNIX.
Otis Wilson
General Manager
AT&T UNIX(r) Software Licensingwayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (02/26/87)
In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: > >AT&T SOFTWARE > >software agreements. We work diligently to protect our proprietary interests. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Seems to me that if you were working DILIGENTLY, you would provide an address for e-mail where usenet users could solicit information as to whether something was public domain. How long have these queries been flying around before a response finally came from AT&T? We saw EMPIRE source code posted and the owner responded within 24 hours! Now THAT is diligence! Most of the users on the net have a genuine concern to keep proprietary code off. Can't it be made easier for them to maintain their ethics? BTW, the poster didn't even answer the question of yacc's source... -- Michael R. Wayne Working at (but not employed by) Ford Motor Company Voice: (313) 322-3986 UUCP: ihnp4!mb2c!fmsrl7!wayne
gmp@rayssd.UUCP (02/26/87)
In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: > Please be aware we are tracing down a recent exposure of some of our > source code on this network, and we have, and will continue to take, > corrective action. > Otis Wilson > General Manager > AT&T UNIX(r) Software Licensing Doesn't this belong in talk.threats or something similar? Really, what purpose does this serve? Should we all now go cower under our beds? Rather than broadcasting threats, I think that quick and definitive action would be more appropriate. Just my opinion... -- Greg Paris ....................... gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM {cbosgd,gatech,ihnp4,linus,mirror,uiucdcs}!rayssd!gmp .. Everything seems to be up in the air at this point ................ I need something to change your mind
burris@ihuxz.UUCP (02/27/87)
In article <691@rayssd.RAY.COM>, gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes: > In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: > > Please be aware we are tracing down a recent exposure of some of our > > source code on this network, and we have, and will continue to take, > > corrective action. > > > Otis Wilson > > General Manager > > AT&T UNIX(r) Software Licensing > > Doesn't this belong in talk.threats or something similar? Really, > what purpose does this serve? Should we all now go cower under our > beds? Rather than broadcasting threats, I think that quick and > definitive action would be more appropriate. Come on guys lighten up! First you imply that AT&T has no right to say that their code is proprietary because someone illegally posted it and AT&T should have prevented it. Then you flame when an official statement comes from an official of AT&T! The only way that statement could be considered a threat is if you are the person directly responsible for release of proprietary software or are caught using it without a liscense. There have been accusations that AT&T is not taking adequate steps to protect their software. The official statement from AT&T SHOULD be an indication that this is hogwash. If you wish to use software illegally that is your choice and your risk which you assess and decide for yourself. Just don't expect everyone to buy your bullhockey which attempts to convince us that you have some sort of legal or moral grounds to do so! Dave Burris ihnp4!ihuxz!burris
keithe@tekgvs.UUCP (02/27/87)
In article <691@rayssd.RAY.COM> gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes: >In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: >> we have, and will continue to take, corrective action. > > >Doesn't this belong in talk.threats or something similar? Really, >what purpose does this serve? Should we all now go cower under our >beds? > I read it as a statement of intent and of fact, not as a threat. But if you've got something to worry about... keith
ron@brl-sem.UUCP (02/27/87)
In article <691@rayssd.RAY.COM>, gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes: > In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: > > Otis Wilson > > General Manager > > AT&T UNIX(r) Software Licensing > > Doesn't this belong in talk.threats or something similar? Really, Give me a break. There has been a lot of misguided talk on the nets over the exact nature of protection of UNIX and copyrights/trade secrets in general. Recently, there has been a large proportion of misinformation, especially with regard to GNU and MINIX. It is refreshing to see some exact information, posted to the correct news groups, without a lot of useless rhetoric and flaming attached to it. Despite what you think of the rest of AT&T, we have always been given the straight story from Otis Wilson, Al Arms, and the rest who were in charge of licensing UNIX over the years. -Ron
hedrick@topaz.UUCP (03/01/87)
Companies are required by law to respond whenever they see someone publish copyrighted code improperly, or when they see someone claim that they no longer intend to enforce the copyright on something. If they see such things and fail to respond, they can lose their copyright. The statement In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: > Please be aware we are tracing down a recent exposure of some of our > source code on this network, and we have, and will continue to take, > corrective action. was almost certainly written by one of their lawyers to be the minimum necessary to preserve their legal rights. The same sort of doctrine occurs with access to private areas. Rutgers closes off all of its on-campus streets one day a year, just to make sure they don't revert to being public. (They do this on Christmas day, by putting up a small sawhorse in the middle of the road saying "this road is closed".) I have seen other universities do this as well. ATT *has* to respond when their copyright is challenged, or they risk having Unix become public domain. I don't know of any software other than Unix whose source is as widely distributed. This may be due to the peculiar history of Unix or it may really be that ATT wants to be good guys. But whatever the reason, Unix source is available to so many people that ATT is very near the limits of believability when they claim it to be a trade secret. Many of the discussions on unix-wizards and other groups come very near the line, given that our license agreements require us to consider all knowledge of Unix internals as confidential information. I think ATT has been remarkably friendly in their enforcement of the Unix license provisions. It would be possible to push them into a corner where they would feel compelled to take a stricter interpretation. I have seen some comments recently in the discussion of the setuid bit that look remarkably like challenges to ATT to act. I think we would all be better off if we let sleeping dogs lie, and be understanding if now and then the dog opens an eye and growls when somebody steps on his tail.
phil@amdcad.UUCP (03/01/87)
In article <691@rayssd.RAY.COM> gmp@rayssd.RAY.COM (Gregory M. Paris) writes: >In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: >> Please be aware we are tracing down a recent exposure of some of our >> source code on this network, and we have, and will continue to take, >> corrective action. > >> Otis Wilson >> General Manager >> AT&T UNIX(r) Software Licensing > >Doesn't this belong in talk.threats or something similar? Really, >what purpose does this serve? Should we all now go cower under our No, this belongs here. Don't you recall all the (obviously false to me) speculation that if someone posted Unix source code, AT&T would no longer have rights to it? This is not a proper thing to do (no more proper than my stealing your car) and AT&T has a right to protect its property, and a right to remind people that Unix is their property. -- I'd rather be compatible than right. Phil Ngai +1 408 982 7840 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,hplabs,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.dec.com
jerry@oliveb.UUCP (03/03/87)
In article <1896@ihuxz.ATT.COM> burris@ihuxz.ATT.COM (Burris) writes: >Come on guys lighten up! First you imply that AT&T has no right to >say that their code is proprietary because someone illegally posted >it and AT&T should have prevented it. Then you flame when an official >statement comes from an official of AT&T! > >The only way that statement could be considered a threat is if you are >the person directly responsible for release of proprietary software or >are caught using it without a liscense. There have been accusations that >AT&T is not taking adequate steps to protect their software. The official >statement from AT&T SHOULD be an indication that this is hogwash. The point is that it does not identify WHAT software is illegal. Telling us that XX software is propietary but they make no claims to YY is a service. Saying SOMEONE did SOMETHING and they are going to get them is a threat. Hell, they don't even say if the alledged breach involved the net. Their posting will make everyone nervious about using any software taken from the net. I think the request was for someone from AT&T to state that the software in question was or was not theirs. This would have ended speculation on the subject. Obviously there is no incentive for them to do so and good reasons for them not to. Would you want to be the one releasing all claim on YY and then find out you were wrong? Like most official statements, it has zero data content. Please be so good as to tell me one fact of information gleened from that statement that was not already obvious. Jerry Aguirre Systems Administration Olivetti ATC
roger@celtics.UUCP (03/13/87)
In article <821@fmsrl7.UUCP> wayne@fmsrl7.UUCP (Michael R. Wayne) writes: >In article <6662@alice.uUCp> fcp@alice.UUCP writes: >>software agreements. We work diligently to protect our proprietary interests. > Seems to me that if you were working DILIGENTLY, you would provide >an address for e-mail where usenet users could solicit information as to >whether something was public domain. Gosh, is the telephone satisfactory only for data-speed communication? They included a phone number... if your interest is truly discovering if code is public domain, and not a quick game of Flame The Giant, that should more than suffice. -- ///==\\ (No disclaimer - nobody's listening anyway.) /// Roger B.A. Klorese, CELERITY (Northeast Area) \\\ 40 Speen St., Framingham, MA 01701 +1 617 872-1552 \\\==// celtics!roger@seismo.CSS.GOV - seismo!celtics!roger