oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (02/05/87)
In article <142@ems.UUCP> mark@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes: > > > I got a message from an individual on the net who compared the > source to the AT&T distribution. He said that the code looked > a lot like the AT&T version. I decided that I had best make > sure that the source was or was not AT&T proprietary. > > After much hasseling, I finally got a look at the AT&T version > of the source code. Not only does it look very similar, in many > places it is exactly the same. Some of the comments and code > have been removed/reworded/added to but that does not change > the fact that the source is a direct copy, or a derivative work > of the AT&T source. > The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. [Same thing happened with EMPIRE sources, but DECUS got a rap from the author, and withdrew the sources.] Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking your company, yourself and the net.. There is, however, one important point: Unless a copyright violation is challenged, copyrights may be lost. Something for AT&T to think about - someone *sells* this bloody thing !!. But than again, I said all of this before... oz -- The best way to have a Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz good idea is to have a Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti].BITNET lot of ideas. Phonet: [416] 736-5053 x 3976
ddl@husc6.UUCP (02/07/87)
In article <464@yetti.UUCP>, oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru > this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind > people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so > that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program > eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit > it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. [Same thing > happened with EMPIRE sources, but DECUS got a rap from the author, > and withdrew the sources.] Good, this confirms what I thought. (In one sense.) And it is still on the DECUS tape. And it is sold. And it is available to any individual who wants it. And it has (and had) no copyright notice. How can anyone claim that this is anything but public domain? How can it possibly be proprietary? Why didn't AT&T prosecute the person who allowed the source to leak? > Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is > crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking > your company, yourself and the net.. The legal "integrity" of the net??? That must be the responsibility to protect AT&T's interests. Can't AT&T do that by itself? > There is, however, one important point: Unless a copyright violation > is challenged, copyrights may be lost. Something for AT&T to think > about - someone *sells* this bloody thing !!. Since there was no copyright, there is no copyright to be lost. I realize a work can be considered copyright without a notice, but only until it is distributed. AT&T relies on the proprietary nature of the code to protect it. They have not taken steps to protect that status. And if anyone has the means to take such steps, surely AT&T does. Maybe the company that sells yacc and lex knows something we don't. Maybe they know that yacc has become public domain. Maybe all of unix has become public domain and everyone is afraid to admit it :-) > But than again, I said all of this before... But can someone who actually understands the *legal* (not moral) aspects of this please, please comment? The notion of publically available information being proprietary is disconcerting. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
tank@apc3b2.UUCP (02/07/87)
Parts of AT&T do look at the netnews. Can't they check this out? Loss of
copyright might occur (for them).
Hopefully net users can remove the copies. But what if it is public domain?
We (the public) would then need a refresh. Are there any SysV source sites
that can double check the comparison? Could they keep it until this issue is
resolved and repost or delete depending on the outcome?
-tank-
--
Jon A. Tankersley | Usenet: { ... }!okstate!apc3b2!tank
Amoco Corporation | Voice: (918) 581-4086
PO Box 591, MS N1068 | Disclaimer: My own opinions.
Tulsa, Oklahoma, 74013 | thomps@gitpyr.UUCP (02/08/87)
In article <1186@husc6.UUCP>, ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes: > > > Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is > > crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking > > your company, yourself and the net.. > > The legal "integrity" of the net??? That must be the responsibility > to protect AT&T's interests. Can't AT&T do that by itself? Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like hot potato. > >They have not taken steps to protect that status. And if > anyone has the means to take such steps, surely AT&T does. Maybe the company > that sells yacc and lex knows something we don't. Maybe they know that > yacc has become public domain. Maybe all of unix has become public domain > and everyone is afraid to admit it :-) On what basis to you state that they have not taken steps to protect it. Just because someone mahages to rip off proprietary data does not mean that the company now loses all rights to the proprietary data. In fact, I believe that any entity which knowingly makes use of such data is subject to potential legal and civil penalties. I seem to recall some Japanese companies settling out of court with IBM for a significant amount of money based on theft of proprietary information. Remember that proprietary information is most often lost through employee theft. Finally, you cannot make a program public domain by placing in the public domain if you don't have a legal right to do so. -- Ken Thompson Phone : (404) 894-7089 Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
gemini@homxb.UUCP (02/08/87)
In article <1186@husc6.UUCP>, ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes: > In article <464@yetti.UUCP>, oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes: > > The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru > > this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind > > people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so > > that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program > > eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit > > it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. > > Good, this confirms what I thought. (In one sense.) And it is > still on the DECUS tape. And it is sold. And it is available to any > individual who wants it. And it has (and had) no copyright notice. How > can anyone claim that this is anything but public domain? How can it > possibly be proprietary? Jeez, listen to yourself. Its like a bank robber stole a bag of money. Then decided to throw a party and just threw the money into the air and a whole lot of people grabbed the money. It's still stolen money. Christ, I can't believe people are trying to rationalize this into a free copy of YACC. Rick Richardson, PC Research, Inc. (201) 922-1134, (201) 834-1378 ..!ihnp4!castor!{rer,pcrat!rer} <--Replies to here, not to homxb!gemini, please.
ddl@husc6.UUCP (02/09/87)
In article <365@apc3b2.UUCP>, tank@apc3b2.UUCP (Jon A. Tankersley) writes: > > Summary: Can AT&T give us a verdict? Can someone other than AT&T give us a verdict? AT&T has a vested interest in the outcome. Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
ddl@husc6.UUCP (02/09/87)
In article <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, thomps@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Thompson) writes: > Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to > protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally > challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease > to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like hot potato. Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not the AT&T-compatibility of the net? I suspect that if I decided to legally challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then nobody would even notice. This is because I can't aford a good (set of) lawyer(s). Does might make right? In other words, if the reason for not doing X is that X is illegal, and even that the law will punish you for doing X, then that is reasonable. On the other hand, if the reason for not doing X is that X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law" is strongly biased in favor of might. Note that I am *not* talking about the morality of stealing software; this is a completely different issue. > On what basis to you state that they have not taken steps to protect it. > Just because someone mahages to rip off proprietary data does not mean > that the company now loses all rights to the proprietary data. In fact, > I believe that any entity which knowingly makes use of such data is > subject to potential legal and civil penalties. I seem to recall some > Japanese companies settling out of court with IBM for a significant > amount of money based on theft of proprietary information. Well, in fact, that's the question. If the public knows your proprietary information, and you didn't protect it in any other way, then how can it still be proprietary? Proprietary implies secret. The key words in your IBM example are "settling out of court." Like AT&T, IBM has the power to intimidate. No matter how legally right you are, you probably can't aford to go to court against IBM or AT&T (or Apple...). This kind of protection works only for large comapnies; not for individuals. > Remember that proprietary information is most often lost through employee > theft. Yes, that's what I always thought. I also thought that such employees were the ones liable for the theft. (For that matter, they should be the only ones capable of the theft since the information was supposedly proprieatry.) Consider the problem you create by claiming that public information can be proprietary. In order to verify the status of any work you must ask a potentially unlimitted number of authors if it really belongs to them. Beyond the unreasonable resources that it would take to acomplish this, you must "trust" all the responses you get since you are not allowed to "see" the proprietary material of those authors. Public domain status would effectively vanish because any entity that made proprietary changes to public code could easilly tell you that the code belonged to it. Now, even if you insist that all of this is reasonable, about the best you could ask for the research phase is a public discussion in which a potential author should come forward and claim rights to "his" work. We have been having just such a discussion and AT&T hasn't claimed yacc. Why are so many people outside of AT&T so anxious to do so for it? Dan Lanciani ddl@harvard.*
thomps@gitpyr.UUCP (02/10/87)
In article <1191@husc6.UUCP>, ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes: > In article <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, thomps@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Thompson) writes: > > Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to > > protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally > > challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease > > to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like hot potato. > > Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not > the AT&T-compatibility of the net? I suspect that if I decided to legally > challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then > nobody would even notice. This is because I can't aford a good (set of) > lawyer(s). Does might make right? In other words, if the reason for not > doing X is that X is illegal, and even that the law will punish you for > doing X, then that is reasonable. On the other hand, if the reason for > not doing X is that X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law" > is strongly biased in favor of might. Note that I am *not* talking about > the morality of stealing software; this is a completely different issue. > I personally do not want to endanger the net over a questionable issue. I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this case legally. My concern is that I would rather see the code assumed to be proprietary and kept off the net until proven otherwise because I still feel the net is vuknerable to lawsuits and I don't want it to disappear over what appears to be a questionable case anyway judging by the discussion. I have no desire to either protect or harm AT&T. I am more concerned about protecting the net. Georgia Tech is a backbone site and am sure if threatened with a major lawsuit over something to do with the net they would drop it like a hot potato. It would have nothing to do with intimidation. It would simply be a case that the powers that be (In this case probably the Ga, University System Board of regents) wouldn't think the net worth fighting a major lawsuit for regardless of right or wrong. You may be correct that no one would take you seriously if you threatened to sue because unfortunately lawsuits take a lot of money and your ability to sustain a suit would probably be doubted. and no -- Ken Thompson (No not that Ken Thompson) Georgia Tech Research Institute Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332 ...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
minow@decvax.UUCP (02/10/87)
A previous posting pointed out that the Yacc that was recently posted to net.sources was Unix yacc, revised so it could be compiled by Decus C. Another note stated that it had been distributed by Decus. Just so nobody is confused, the Decus C distribution (11-SP-18) does not contain a version of Yacc. There are two (more-or-less) public-domain Yacc-like parser generators: -- Bison, available from the Gnu project. -- A parser generator written in Ratfor and available from the Software Tools User's Group. Martin Minow, Decus C maintainer. decvax!minow
oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) (02/10/87)
In article <1191@husc6.UUCP> ddl@husc6.UUCP writes: > > Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not >the AT&T-compatibility of the net? I suspect that if I decided to legally >challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then >nobody would even notice. This is because I can't aford a good (set of) >lawyer(s). > When I originally made the statement about LEGAL INTEGRITY, I meant for all purposes/individuals/organizations are concerned. This net is not the place to deal with legally shakey software. That is why, for example, although everyone from here to timbuktu had a copy of EARLY JOVE, nobody posted it to the net, due to some fragments of AT&T/BSD code. *That* is preserving legal integrity. >... X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law" >is strongly biased in favor of might. > What gives you the idea that any cornerstore joe *cannot* sue you out of existence ?? AT&T is not the issue here. A general state of concern for copyrights and licenses *is*. If one is dubious about the legal status of a piece of software, than one should first investigate, and take necessary steps for permissions etc, if possible, instead of just posting it. This is what I have done with CHESS 0.5 for example, and I obtained permission to post in *writing*. Also, when I wanted to post an emacs (CCA) I found in a usenix tape, I first asked around, and got a phone call from the author telling me that it was not distributable, because parts were from Montgomery's Emacs (AT&T). > > Well, in fact, that's the question. If the public knows your >proprietary information, and you didn't protect it in any other way, >then how can it still be proprietary? Proprietary implies secret. > This is a good point, but it still means that one has to check with a good lawyer, and better still, AT&T. I would be inclined to think that this yacc has been floating around too long without being challenged, and hence, it probably is no longer protected by licenses and the like. BUT, I do *not know* for sure !! If nobody knows, than It has to be checked out. Ignorance is no excuse in a court of law. > >...We have been having just such a discussion and AT&T hasn't claimed >yacc. Why are so many people outside of AT&T so anxious to do so for it? > I know, and perhaps you know, that the YACC posted is *the* yacc. The concern here is for an attitude towards copyrighted/licensed material, and not for the health of AT&T. I dislike software hoarding and *black boxes*, but this does not imply disrespect for copyrights and/or intellectual property. If something has been copyrighted/licensed in a manner to disallow casual distribution/disclosure (read: un*x tools, goslings emacs, EMPIRE in fortran [I had the sources for the last 3 or 4 years, but you did not see it on the net. Three guesses as to why !!] or any derivation from the original e.g. C version, etc), than that is good enough for me for not to casually distribute/disclose, until I see a legally acceptable document that indicates it is OK to distribute/disclose. oz -- The best way to have a Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz good idea is to have a Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti].BITNET lot of ideas. Phonet: [416] 736-5053 x 3976
michael@nvuxd.UUCP (02/11/87)
One point that I haven't seen made in this discussion is the fact that *every* machine that had UNIX(tm) source on it involved a license that forbids moving the source to another machine. Since someone must have violated the license to post this particular piece of source, I put using the posted source in the same category as receiving stolen goods -- it does not become public domain, it's still AT&T's intellectual property. Michael Cain Bell Communications Research
campbell@maynard.UUCP (02/12/87)
In article <1191@husc6.UUCP> ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes: > > Well, in fact, that's the question. If the public knows your >proprietary information, and you didn't protect it in any other way, >then how can it still be proprietary? Proprietary implies secret. Wrong. Copyrighted information can be publicly available but the copyright holder still has protected proprietary rights. If someone copies a novel, substituting their own name as author and removing the original copyright, that doesn't suddenly make the novel public domain material. The yacc case isn't black and white. (Few interesting cases are -- otherwise we wouldn't need judges, juries, and lawyers.) Someone who, in good faith, received a copy of the pirated yacc, not knowing about this controversy, probably could not be sued successfully. They could be enjoined from using the sources, though, in the future, once notified of yacc's status. On the other hand, if it could be shown that you *knew* about the controversy and had reason to believe the source was proprietary (having discovered this through the net), there is a chance you could be sued if you used the product for commercial gain (selling it, or selling products built with it). However, it's also true that if responsible individuals at AT&T were aware of the piracy AND TOOK NO ACTION, the courts *might* decide that AT&T, not being sufficiently concerned to defend their rights, had lost them. This is how trademarks are lost (such as aspirin, which was once a trademark of Bayer), and it's why Xerox gets all upset when people use xerox as a verb. It's also why Coca Cola has secret agents roaming the countryside ordering "Coke" at restaurants, then sending a bottle of what they're served to Atlanta for analysis. If a restaurant serves something else, they're sued. This happened to Howard Johnson's and it cost them big bucks (six figures, I believe). In any event, what I would do with the sources are: 1) I sure wouldn't sell them. (Unless the Austin Code Works knows something we all don't, they're living dangerously.) 2) I sure wouldn't use them to build a product for my company. 3) I wouldn't be afraid to use them for personal hacks. 4) I would add a comment at the top noting that their ownership is controversial, and that they *may* be copyrighted by AT&T, so if I gave a copy to anyone they'd be on notice that using the code to build products might be risky. 5) If AT&T finally bestirred itself and announced that yacc was indeed proprietary, I'd delete my copies. Perhaps AT&T's legal case would be weak -- but it *would* have a case, and I sure don't want to waste time and money in court fighting it. Life is too short and AT&T has too many lawyers. Caveat lector: I am not a lawyer. -- Larry Campbell The Boston Software Works, Inc. Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp 120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109 uucp: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell +1 617 367 6846 ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu MCI: LCAMPBELL