samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) (06/14/88)
CIn article <36@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes: C>In article <109@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes: C>> ... C>> However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license, C>> which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised C>> to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source. C> C>at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT C>CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!! The fact is that they started C>by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and I started this discussion, and I'm not sure that the original question is being addressed: the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been the issue. The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" in describing the functionality of the tools? Does MKS have a license from AT&T? -- Dominick Samperi, NYC samperi@acf8.NYU.EDU samperi@marob.MASA.COM cmcl2!phri!marob uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperi (^ ell)
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/15/88)
In article <308@marob.MASA.COM> samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >if I develop tools that have the same (or more) >functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), >then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" >in describing the functionality of the tools? Since none of the names "ls", "rm", etc. are trademarks, you may use them. "UNIX" is a registered trademark of AT&T, so you have to be careful how you use it. You should not apply the appellation "UNIX" to your own products, unless AT&T has granted you permission to do so. If you wish to advertise them as "upward-compatible with UNIX* version NN tools", with a footnote stating the trademark status of "UNIX", then I don't think there is anything AT&T can do about it. Since I'm not a lawyer you should verify this before acting on it.
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/15/88)
In article <308@marob.MASA.COM> samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes: >I started this discussion, and I'm not sure that the original question is >being addressed: the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS >because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been >the issue. The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) >functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), >then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" >in describing the functionality of the tools? Does MKS have a license from >AT&T? If they did, I am sure AT&T would require them to display a copyright notice to that effect somewhere. However, all their disks, manuals, etc, only show a MKS copyright. There are also numerous other examples of people developing functional clones of UNIX -- including the same names for commands -- without AT&T taking any action: Regulus, Coherent, Minix, etc. There are numerous PD programs which duplicate UNIX functionality, and which AT&T is surely aware of because they are distributed over this network: PD Tar, AFIO (a cpio clone), GNU AWK, etc. No action was taken against any of these by AT&T. In fact, John Gilmore had a letter from AT&T's legal dept. stating that UUSLAVE, which is functionally equivalent to uucico, did not contain any AT&T code and did not infringe on their rights. That's why I am not sure that the CSS case has the impact Dominick hints at above. And finally, as I said in my original reply, I heard from someone in the orbit of the CSS principals that they were almost certain that CSS had had access to VI source code, and that was right after PC-VI first appeared. Since ATT&T and CSS settled out of court, there is no knowing what AT&T would have ended up showing and arguing in court, unless CSS violates the terms of the settlement and the thing comes to trial after all. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD
psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) (06/22/88)
In article <308@marob.MASA.COM>, samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi) writes: > . . . the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS > because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been > the issue. It's my understanding that source license and copyright violations were the problem, not "look and feel". Ideas can't be copywritten. They *can* be patented. (Trivia question: what idea from the early T&R UNIX(R) operating system *was* patented? Answer below.) > The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more) > functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.), > then can I use the same program names? I can't think of any objection. Those names can't be copywritten, either. They could have been trademarked, but they weren't. (I can see it all now: "grep is a trademark of AT&T":-) > And if not, can I use the word "UNIX" in describing the functionality > of the tools? UNIX is a registered trademark of AT&T. I don't know exactly what restrictions that puts on you. (AT&T's official policy is that the word "UNIX" is an adjective, so rather than "UNIX-like", if you use the "U" word, you should say "UNIX system-like". No, repeat, no comment.) > Does MKS have a license from AT&T? Not so far as I know. What's to license? The look and feel of grep? So far as I know, MKS didn't port UNIX system code; they reimplemented the tools. AT&T officially neither approves or disapproves of MKS's work. (Some of us sure do appreciate it, though.) -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. I'm not a member of the bar; for legal advice, consult a lawyer. AT&T was awarded a patent for Dennis Ritchie's invention of the set user ID and set group ID bits.
txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) (06/24/88)
A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? Timothy Reed ...uunet!wash08!txr98
gwyn@brl-smoke.ARPA (Doug Gwyn ) (06/25/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? Of course not.
kai@ihlpa.ATT.COM (Irwin) (06/25/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP>, txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: > A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies > of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS > didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > > Timothy Reed > ...uunet!wash08!txr98 Hardly, AT&T Bell Labs, Indian Hill facility (6000+ employees) has (had?) a PC/VI site license from CSS. Some how I don't think that it really matters if a company uses a product or not, I mean look at Microsoft and Apple, I'm sure Microsoft owns more than a few copies of the etch-a-sketch emulator or what ever it is they call the Mac/Lisa operating system. Although I s'pose that's backwards though, hmmm. Ken A. Irwin AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville IH 3D206 (312) 979-4578 ...!ihlpa!kai
wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) (06/25/88)
In article <8152@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn>) writes: >In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >>If MKS didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > >Of course not. And I bet that there were (are) a lot of AT&T employees using CSS' PC-VI and possibly PC-TOOLS and SPELL. One even told me that he had purchased his copy of PC-VI from the Computer Center at Bell Labs in NJ. That didn't keep AT&T from pursuing CSS. -- Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101 UUCP: killer!dcs!wnp ESL: 62832882 DOMAIN: wnp@dcs.UUCP TLX: 910-380-0585 EES PLANO UD
wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) (06/28/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: > A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies > of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS > didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? 1) NO, it doesn't imply approval of legality, it just implies individuals think it's a useful package. 2) Either a) <vendor> has rewritten their utilities from scratch, and therefore doesn't need a license, or b) <vendor> has a proper UNIX operating system (source) license, and is properly following the licensing rules for binary code sales (e.g. paying royalties), or c) <vendor> has either ripped off source or failed to follow the rules in reselling binary products derived from that source. As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course), a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license (just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses), b) MKS has ported some UNIX tools and reimplemented others and is presumably following the rules for the products they use, c) CSS is alleged to have ripped off stuff (that's for a lawsuit to decide, and I don't know the facts.) a) "Z", from Manx Software is a pure reimplementation, but c) various people have ripped it off from *them* and distributed it on BBSes. (If you have a copy and haven't bought it from them, either destroy it, and encourage others to do so, or buy a curent copy which is *MUCH* better than the ancient wimpy version you're using now.) -- # Thanks; # Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs Rnmail: /usr/wcs/.signature: not found
alex@mks.UUCP (Alex White) (06/29/88)
In article <166@skep2.ATT.COM>, wcs@skep2.ATT.COM (Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>) writes: > b) MKS has ported some UNIX tools and reimplemented others and is presumably > following the rules for the products they use, Since several people on the net have commented about and questioned the origin of our products, I feel we should reply. I am a director of MKS, so you can take this as official and stop wondering. The MKS Toolkit, MKS Awk and MKS Vi contain NO, and I repeat NO, part whatsoever of UNIX. They are all complete re-implementations. We have licensed MKS RCS from Walter Tichey and paid a licensing fee. The parts of RCS that normally rely on UNIX code [diff, diff3] are our own code. We are distributers for SoftQuad Publishing Software and have ported it to DOS. Softquad Publishing Software is the official new release of AT&T Documenters Workbench, and hence does indeed contain licensed software from AT&T. The DOS Release of SQPS contains several utility programs which come from the MKS Toolkit.
keithe@tekgvs.TEK.COM (Keith Ericson) (06/29/88)
In article <142@wash08.UUCP> txr98@wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes: >A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies >of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey. If MKS >didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval? > Never assume that any one part of a large organization even knows, much less approves, of what another department, section, group or whatever is doing. keith
madd@bu-cs.BU.EDU (Jim Frost) (07/03/88)
In article <166@skep2.ATT.COM> wcs@skep2.UUCP (46323-Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>,2G218,x0705,) writes: |As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course), |a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license | (just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses), Minix is indeed a pure implementation. It is different not only at the source code level, but quite different at the architecture level. This is not necessarily good (there are many things that are better done differently) but it's a nice teaching tool, which is what Andy T. wrote it for. I'd rather have used it than XINU, which is interesting in design and implementation but works on that nasty Digital hardware :-). jim frost madd@bu-it.bu.edu