John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/14/85)
I'm happy that you two are able to obtain Unix source code at a reasonable price. AT&T wants $40k from me. Maybe if AT&T were doing something nice for me I might not think about holes in their license. I'm just a single hacker, not connected to any university that got Unix cheap, so it costs me the full $40k if I want the sources legally. All your comments about how easy it is to change Unix, how enlightened AT&T is to make it available cheap, and how much better off we all are because AT&T is like this: THEY DONT APPLY TO PEOPLE WHO ARENT AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CANT AFFORD $40,000. While there is some argument that everybody is better off because Berkeley got Unix cheap, that isnt enough to satisfy me. When I get Unix running on my own desktop machine I will want to make changes to the system that will require sources. Since paying $40k is out of the question, my only choices are to (1) steal the sources, (2) do without, or (3) scrap Unix and use something that I can get sources to. If GNU works out then #3 will be a real option, but right now it isnt. Being of low moral standards I would probably choose #1 over #2. I'm not alone in this thinking. Lots of people have stolen source tapes so they will have it when they need it. So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let them eat binaries" to the rest of us. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl jpm@BNL.ARPA
BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> (01/15/85)
Universities get the sources cheap because they are willing to enter into agreements to allow AT&T to retain ownership of software developed on such systems (in general.) Universities can enter into such contracts. If your business was willing to sign such a thing AT&T might let you have it also but I doubt your business is interested as it wants to make money (like AT&T.) If a university decides otherwise then it, too, has to purchase a commercial agreement...no difference as far as I understand. As for personal computing (a different subject) I agree, there is a real problem here. Especially because so many personal computerists have dreams of becoming businesses so they are not that special a case. For this reason (confusion?) and others I am completely supportive of RMS's GNU efforts and have several times offered to be of help where I can. There is no conflict of ideas here, AT&T was nice to give Universities source licenses for free, other ideas are nice too (GNU), some are not so nice (paying for things I guess), so what? -Barry Shein
John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/15/85)
>Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 12:47:43 PST >From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA> > >Oh I see, I must have misunderstood you. What you were saying, I guess, >is that if *YOU* don't like the price of something, you feel fine >about stealing it, or at the very least trying to find some "quasi-legal" >loophole for ripping it off. > >I hope they watch you when you're in department or jewelry stores. I dont think the department or jewelry store analogy holds up. If I were to steal something from such a store, the net result would be that I would have it and they would not. If a get a copy of a Unix tape, I have it and AT&T still has it. Furthermore, AT&T has not lost a sale to me because I would never be able to buy it in the first place. This sounds like a excuse for software ripoffs of any sort, and in a way it is. With me it is a question of degrees. I dont think this excuse holds up when the software is priced reasonably. If somebody used this as an excuse for pirating a $50 program I would probably give them hell for it. But we aren't talking about small amounts here. We are talking about FOURTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. No individual can afford to pay that much. You are saying that only big corporations and educational institutions should be able to modify Unix. Small users should all go to their binaryendor when they want something changed. THAT STINKS. Standard Vendor Support has been discussed in Unix-Wizards before. If your problem is shared with enough other users it may get fixed sooner or (more likely) later. If you want something special, either forget it or hand over huge sums to pay for your changes. The small user with special needs is locked out. When the computer needed to run Unix cost over $100k it was OK to charge $40k for the sources. Only the big guys had the required computers and they were used to paying that much. Now anybody can run Unix on a PC/XT (badly, but it can be done) or on a PC/AT. When the hardware costs under $10k it just isnt reasonable to charge $40k for the operating system. I'm sure you will continue to think I am a common thief and I know that I will continue to think I'm not that bad. Nothing either of us can say is going to change the others thinking, so how about addressing the real issue in all of this: What good are all the benefits of "cheap" Unix and the ease of modification to binary only people (who are either already the majority of Unix users or soon will be)? You said nothing on the subject. Does your silence mean you agree that small users are left out in the cold (but that they deserve their fate because they cant afford a $40k source license)? -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@BNL.ARPA
Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA> (01/15/85)
Just because you want something does not mean you have a claim on it. UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for access to it that is their right. Of course they would be foolish to do so, but they also have the right to be fools. The mass market of UNIX will consist of people who have no need to mess around with their O.S. internals. Adaptations of UNIX to these packages will be made by OEMs and VARs who will pay the license fee and amortize the cost over all the systems they will sell. You too can form a company to remarket UNIX, or you can develop your own copy from scratch. If you think that would cost you more than $43,000 (and you would be right about that!), then you should admit that what AT&T has to offer is indeed WORTH what they are asking. I would love a $40,000 automobile, but I do not gripe at Ferrari for not selling it to me for $500.
John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/15/85)
>Universities get the sources cheap because they are willing to enter >into agreements to allow AT&T to retain ownership of software developed >on such systems (in general.) Universities can enter into such >contracts. If your business was willing to sign such a thing AT&T might >let you have it also but I doubt your business is interested as it wants >to make money (like AT&T.) What business? I'm not a business. That is the whole problem. I would probably be happy to sign such an agreement. I'm not out to make money by selling Unix programs, just to have a nice environment to hack at home. >As for personal computing (a different subject) I agree, there is a real >problem here. Especially because so many personal computerists have >dreams of becoming businesses so they are not that special a case. That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Now that most hackers can afford to get a machine with enough power to run Unix, there is a need for individuals to have Unix sources. I agree that many PC hackers have dreams of turning their programming into a business, but most of the time it is nothing more than a dream and thus is not an issue. >....For >this reason (confusion?) and others I am completely supportive of RMS's >GNU efforts and have several times offered to be of help where I can. If I were a better Unix-Wizard I would probably help RMS too. GNU holds a lot of promise, but it is only vaporware right now. When it is finished maybe the problems I describe will go away, but until then GNU really doesnt enter into the discussion. >There is no conflict of ideas here, AT&T was nice to give Universities >source licenses for free, other ideas are nice too (GNU), some are not >so nice (paying for things I guess), so what? I sent my message in reply to one Lauren sent saying how nice AT&T was and that the people who were trying to find holes in the Unix license were jerks. What I got out of his message was "AT&T is doing you all a big favor, so why are you biting the hand the feeds you?" My point is that AT&T isnt doing me, and other hackers like me, any favors with their pricing structure. I'm upset that Lauren makes it sound like AT&T is being nice to everybody, when in fact they are only doing favors for educational institutions. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@BNL.ARPA
John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/15/85)
>The mass market of UNIX will consist of people who have no need to >mess around with their O.S. internals. Who said anything about the mass market? I never said I was a member of the mass market. But since you bring it up, my view is that since the mass market is where most of the users will be, that is where AT&T should plan to make their money. AT&T could sell cheap sources to hackers, the hackers would generate software that the mass market might want to run, and thus more people will buy Unix based machines. AT&T would sell more Unix licenses because more members of the mass market would be interested in machines running Unix based on the software dveloped by the hackers. Everybody wins. But this will never happen, and I'm not asking it to. I would be happy if AT&T would charge people based on their intended use: $40k if you intend to make money off Unix and cheap if you only want it for hacking. My personal interest is not making money selling Unix software. >...Adaptations of UNIX to these >packages will be made by OEMs and VARs who will pay the license fee >and amortize the cost over all the systems they will sell. You too >can form a company to remarket UNIX... But I dont want to remarket or sell anything. I'm not in this as a business. Thats the point that everybody misses. I just want a nice environment to hack in on my home machine. Let AT&T charge a fortune to the people who intend to make money off of Unix. >I would love a $40,000 automobile, but I do not gripe at Ferrari for >not selling it to me for $500. I think thats a bad analogy. You cant compare software with physical items. If Ferrari were to sell you a $40k car for $500 they would take a loss on materials and not be able to sell it to smebody else. If AT&T were to sell Unix sources for $500 they would still make money on the materials and still be able to sell Unix to other people. -- John McNamee ..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm jpm@BNL.ARPA
Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> (01/15/85)
Let me know next time you see the sources to MSDOS lying around anywhere. -Ron
John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA> (01/15/85)
>From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> > >Let me know next time you see the sources to MSDOS lying around anywhere. MSDOS is small. It is written in assembly language. It is quite possible to change it without sources (I've done it). Sure its a pain to disassemble the code, but it can be done. Unix is written in C. Its huge. You really cant disassemble it and hope to understand what is going on (that is the nature of compiler output). MSDOS is also a very different type of system. I can do things on MSDOS without ever touching its kernel that would require kernel changes on Unix.
lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA (01/16/85)
Exactly my point. The sources for many other operating systems and software, including things like MSDOS, CP/M, and a whole range of application software, are in general also not available or at least not available except at a very high price. There is nothing unique about the Unix situation, and nothing that disqualifies it from the same protections that other property possess. In any case, I've made my (hard line? call it what you will) feelings about this quite clear -- I consider software copying in these situations to be theft, period. This whole discussion probably would belong in net-ethics. Except there isn't such a group. Perhaps there should be. I wonder how many people would subscribe to it? --Lauren--
Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR.ARPA> (01/16/85)
You can change the kernel without sources. There was a nice talk about installing networking in a binary only unix system using the device driver interfaces. -Ron
lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA (01/16/85)
Actually, I sent the department store analogy message just to you, not to the list. Though this message is going to both, since you saw fit to forward my private mail to you to the entire list. I think what really irks you is that it is possible to get the source at all! If the source were unavailable at ANY price to ANYONE, then you might complain less. Maybe. Note that source for many microcomputer programs (including the extremely popular mass-market ones, many of which have presumably brought their authors far more income that AT&T has made from Unix to date!) is often completely unavailable. And that decision is the right of the software author. People selling and distributing software have the clear right to determine the distribution means and prices for their products. The fact that the product is easily copied does not change anything at all -- the protection of intellectual property rights is firmly grounded in law (though obviously not accepted by you). You seem to be setting yourself up as judge and jury. You sit around deciding that it's "OK" to rip off an expensive piece of software, but you draw the line at a $50 package. There are people sitting around in prisons who have used similar reasoning in other (not so different) contexts. Yes, I consider what you seem to be advocating to be common theft, and nothing less. --Lauren--
"W.H. Huggins" <whh%jhu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA> (01/16/85)
In your recent comments, you <jpm@bnl> write: >What I got out of his message was "AT&T is doing you all a big favor, so why >are you biting the hand the feeds you?" My point is that AT&T isnt doing me, >and other hackers like me, any favors with their pricing structure. I'm upset >that Lauren makes it sound like AT&T is being nice to everybody, when in fact >they are only doing favors for educational institutions. A point that has not been adequately recognized in this debate is that Educational institutions traditionally enjoy a priviledged status in society because they contribute in ways vital to its well-being. Schools are exempt from taxes and rely on gifts and contributions from individuals, corporations, foundations, and other organizations for the support needed to fulfill their functions. The tuition that you paid to your university covered only a small fraction of what it cost the school. Most schools desparately need such support. Have you made any donations to your school recently? Perhaps someday, society will come to appreciate that hacking is the priviledged activity that you seem to believe, and declare that contributions to hackers should similarly be tax deductible. But from the many reports that appear daily in the news media linking hackers to computer fraud, the most applicable exemption would be exemption from the law!
Claude Lapointe <lapoint@BRL-AOS.ARPA> (01/16/85)
doggone it!!! regardless of what can or cannot be done, taking something which belongs to another against the other's will is stealing. period. there can be extenuations, such as taking food if one will die otherwise. they seem to me not to apply here. but even if they do, will you turkeys quit cluttering up other people's mail with your neverending squabbling/self-serving-excuse-findin!! i've got better things to do than wade through this morally/ethically juvenile prattle! if you're going to steal it, just shut up and do it! claude
tankus@hsi.UUCP (01/17/85)
>> Munch Line <<
John,
Maybe what should be considered here is a compromise on both sides:
Get AT&T to distribute the sources to a users (hackers) group(s). These group(s)would fill the same roles as the universities, namely getting UNIX for free.
The group(s) in turn could sell or license the UNIX sources to hackers for a feeor in return for software development that would go into the public domain or beavailable to the general UNIX community.
I think alot of needs could be filled. The only problem here is the word *fee*.
What is reasonable and equitable to all parties? Should fees be based on whetherthe UNIX flavor is single or multi-user? If so, should it be broken down furtherby the number of multi-users supported at an increasing fee? Should fees be
based on the ability to pay?
Fees should not be the main discussion nor should who the next Joans or Joes of
Arcs should be. Rather, how can we get AT&T to work with us and we with them so
that everyone has a stake and everyone benefits. (Please, I don't live in Utopianor think Utopian but rather I try to think rationally).
In conclusion ...
Could someone mail me some info on what GNU is or isn't? I have not seen the
term used before. PLEASE SEND MAIL! I don't want to clutter this discussion.
All flames - PLEASE SEND MAIL! I will respond to you. Let's just leave this
as a constructive discussion.
Thanks a bunch!
--
" For every word there is a song upon which inspiration lies ..."
Ed Tankus
{noao, ihnp4, yale}!hsi!tankus
Health Systems International
New Haven, CT 06511
(203) 562-2101phil@amdcad.UUCP (Phil Ngai) (01/18/85)
> So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being > nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let > them eat binaries" to the rest of us. Hey guys, has anyone looked at an ATT UNIX System V, Release 2.0 Version 1 schedule (price list) lately? YOU CAN SUBLICENSE SOURCE LICENSES! Leaving aside initial overhead, you can get a 1-32 user system source license for: $1000! The initial overhead is pretty steep, $43,000 for the first CPU and $25,000 for the initial sublicensing fee, and $16,000 for the second CPU. But the third and subsequent CPUs qualify for the $1000 price. Why don't you get 84 people together, form a company, and sell genuine AT&T source licenses for $2,000 (or less). (guess I'll be roasted if I get this wrong) -- "Nations go to war over women like you, it's just a form of appreciation..." Phil Ngai (408) 749-5720 UUCP: {ucbvax,decwrl,ihnp4,allegra}!amdcad!phil ARPA: amdcad!phil@decwrl.ARPA
chongo@nsc.UUCP (Landon C. Noll) (01/20/85)
In article <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA> Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA> writes: >Just because you want something does not mean you have a claim on it. >UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for >access to it that is their right. *sigh* All the more reason to create a public domain style of unix (note the use of the noun) and post it to the net! Even then you wil have to come up with some other name (like GNU, or TM) and have the lawyers on hand to prove that your sources never got near AT&T's version of unix. Well anyway the above is my opinion and does not reflect a stand on the part of my company. chongo <unix (n.) 1) a yummo thing. 2) an idea> /\uu/\ -- Lome tiranar? Ash Urnikx arda! Ash thrakatuluk krimpatul! A chant from the AT&T marketing book <arpox.>
laura@utzoo.UUCP (Laura Creighton) (01/20/85)
John McNamee writes ``AT&T is only doing favours for educational institutions''. In this he is correct. AT&T is not doing favours for John McNamee, or for me when I get my home system. I would love it if AT&T would do me the favour of giving me a source license, but I do not think that they are obligated to do so. Laura Creighton utzoo!laura
clarke@utcs.UUCP (Jim Clarke) (01/22/85)
Just to stick a totally different oar into these muddy waters: I'm a novice system administrator (six months' service) on a binary Xenix system (not the machine I'm writing from). I have no desire to change the system I'm running, at least not yet, but I do want to be able to understand it. What I keep finding is that the documentation is inadequate: it's OK for most simple problems at the user level, but for the kind of troubles I have as an administrator it looks mostly like a very well-written guide to the source. In other words, with this documentation *and* the source, I could probably figure out most of my troubles, but without the source I'm just frustrated. I'm lucky enough to be in a computer science department, so that as well as my little binary operation there are a few VAXes around with source, and there are a good many graduate students itching to help people like me. What would I do if I were all alone in Timbuctoo? I'm starting to wish for those yards of shelf filled with IBM manuals that used to fill me with horror when I visited computer centre offices. But we know what's wrong with that approach; what I'd really like to see would be *printed* copies of the source without on-line copies. Maybe micro- fiche copies should be sold -- for, say, several hundred dollars? Am I dreaming?
bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast)) (01/24/85)
> Article <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA>, from Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA> +---------------- | Just because you want something does not mean you have a claim on it. | UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for | access to it that is their right. Of course they would be foolish to | do so, but they also have the right to be fools. | ... | You too can form a company to remarket UNIX, or you can develop your own copy | from scratch. If you think that would cost you more than $43,000 | (and you would be right about that!), then you should admit that what | AT&T has to offer is indeed WORTH what they are asking. And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES? Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which (with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix -- get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? While this was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities, or it lowers prices to us. Don't dodge his question, d*mn it. --bsa -- Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business) 6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 +1 216 524 1416 (or what have you) Who said you had to be (a) a poor programmer or (b) a security hazard to be a hacker?
mwm@ucbtopaz.CC.Berkeley.ARPA (01/26/85)
In article <558@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast)) writes: >> Article <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA>, from Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA> >+---------------- >| UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for >| access to it that is their right. Of course they would be foolish to >| do so, but they also have the right to be fools. >And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES? >Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, <...> >get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? I give. Why does AT&T play favorites? :-) <mike
kre@munnari.OZ (Robert Elz) (01/27/85)
In article <558@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: | And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES? | Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, | get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? This has been answered many times (though someone who recently said something about doing community good was probably being a bit idealistic). Its the same reason that DEC, IBM, Apple, etc sell hardware cheap to educational institutions - its good business. People get this special feeling about their first sytem - its always the one that everything else is compared against, and fail to satisfactorilly meet. (I still wonder why all machines don't "or" index registers together the way they were intended to be :-) By making UNIX (or Vaxen, 4300's, or Macintoshes) readily available to educational instutions, all those first timers get brought up on unix (or ..). That's then what they want forever after. That's what they'll pressure management to buy, what they'll choose when they become management, and what they'll buy for their own small machine. All that adds up to BIG MONEY. You don't think its a good investment?? Robert Elz decvax!mulga!kre
chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui) (01/27/85)
In article <558@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes: >And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES? >Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which >(with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix -- >get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? While this >was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone >else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities, >or it lowers prices to us. > >Don't dodge his question, d*mn it. Well, I'll try to not dodge the question, although I doubt you'll like the answer. I think the main reason they 'play favorites' with Unix is because the educational institutions are the ones that have made Unix what it is today-- they started by giving it away to them because they had to-- the regulatory agencies that helped run AT&T while it was the phone company wouldn't let them sell it. So, there is a history of this two level sales system. The reason they still do it has a minor reason and a major reason-- I'm sure they get a tax break for the educational donation, and by making it available to schools, they are sure to develop entire generations of computers freaks who demand to work on Unix, thereby setting up a long term market for their products. Apple, of course, is doing the same for the II and the Mac in the elementary, high, and University atmospheres, and rather successfully as well. Giving away the source to small 'hackers' doesn't have any advantage to AT&T-- you aren't bringing up future hackers in a volume they could notice, they don't get tax breaks because you aren't a charitable organization, and the licensing (AT&T seems to kill three or four trees each time someone wants a license) would severely outstrip any moneys they might get or any long term advantages they might see. Plus, they really don't have anything in a hacker group to ensure they will keep to the licensing agreements. Schools have lawyers they can beat on, companies that put out 45K are serious enough to know they don't want AT&T's lawyers coming down on them. What could they do to a hacker that got a low cost license and then proceeded to post the sources to net.sources? Take away his computer? Big deal. Personally, I think the current situation is fair. The alternative, realistically, is no source at all. They attempted that with the Blit drivers and got beaten back. Hopefully, AT&T has learned that Unix simply won't survive without source, but they also need to be given the ability to make a reasonable profit (to fund further Unix development, of course) and to make sure that their proprietary materials are protected. And, much as I wish it wasn't, until someone goes to court and talks a court into removing the restrictions, Unix source is proprietary. You wanna take on their lawyers? I don't.... chuq -- From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach {allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui@decwrl.ARPA God is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs --- National Semiconductor does not require useless disclaimers on posted material that is obviously not posted by company spokesmen...
Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@Brl-Vld.ARPA> (01/27/85)
Originally, unversities got UNIX because it was a new research-oriented development, not a product. And AT&T was not allowed by law to market software and other computing services. Part of the reason that there is currently an "educational" license is due to this historical situation. The other reason universities probably get a discount is because AT&T sees that it is in its own long-term interests to do this. Whether this is a purely marketing ploy, a tax break, or a concern for assisting education to improve the overall society is anybody's guess. It really doesn't matter, though -- if AT&T wanted to give away UNIX to people whose names start with "G" and withhold it from everybody else, that too would be their right (and again, it would be folly to make that kind of business policy). One thing I am sure of (and one suspects AT&T would agree) is that making UNIX freely available to "hackers" would be a BAD idea; there is a conscious effort to establish a stable operating system base for applications software, and hackers are unlikely to care enough about such matters to cooperate.
dmr@dutoit.UUCP (01/28/85)
Although this is indeed not a good forum to discuss licensing issues, I can't resist. Brandon Allbery wonders why AT&T provides source licenses for Unix at low cost to educational institutions (which must, by the way, be degree-granting, and which also must use the system for educational purposes only: if they use it for administration or other such things they pay more). The policy of educational licenses has been in effect for a long time (since well before Unix) and is generally defended internally by reasons such as these: 1) General social benefit by supporting education 2) Increased visibility and better communication for Bell Labs within the scientific community. Giving licenses to anyone who asks (or even who certifies that he is just a little guy who promises not to compete) is not in the cards. In another letter, Chuqui von R. displays a couple of misapprehensions: First, AT&T does not get any tax break out of cheap source licenses for universities. To write off a donation, you must give it free and clear. As has been discussed at length here, licenses are licenses to use; AT&T still owns the source. Thus no donation. Second, AT&T didn't "have to" give educational licenses. There were commercial licenses years before divestiture. Dennis Ritchie
acheng@uiucdcs.UUCP (01/29/85)
/* Written 2:27 am Jan 28, 1985 by dmr@dutoit in uiucdcs:net.unix-wizar */ /* ---------- "AT&T and Unix" ---------- */ Although this is indeed not a good forum to discuss licensing issues, I can't resist. ... /* End of text from uiucdcs:net.unix-wizar */ Please don't take it personal but this is unix-wizard, not unix-lawyer. Please discuss about the licenses principle, philosophy,... somewhere else. I am and probably the majority readers are tired of it. albert cheng acheng@uiuc.ARPA
mark@elsie.UUCP (Mark J. Miller) (01/29/85)
> > And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES? > Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which > (with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix -- > get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? While this > was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone > else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities, > or it lowers prices to us. > > Don't dodge his question, d*mn it. > Simple. Universities produce computer programers, computer scientists and computer managers. Some of these enter the real world and get in a position to buy computers and computer operating systems. They know UNIX, they like UNIX, and they're terrified of using anything else (I lasted 3 weeks on VMS). It's not their money, so they have the company shell out $43,000. IBM used to give Universities free computers for the exact same reason. It took a Justice Dept. antitrust suit to stop them. -- Mark J. Miller NIH/NCI/DCE/LEC UUCP: decvax!harpo!seismo!elsie!mark Phone: (301) 496-5688
gwyn@brl-tgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn <gwyn>) (02/01/85)
> /* Written 2:27 am Jan 28, 1985 by dmr@dutoit in uiucdcs:net.unix-wizar */ > > Please don't take it personal but this is unix-wizard, not unix-lawyer. I think DMR is entitled to special dispensation.
rob@haddock.UUCP (02/06/85)
>>>Although this is indeed not a good forum to discuss licensing issues, >>>I can't resist. >>>... >>> Dennis Ritchie >>Please don't take it personal but this is unix-wizard, not unix-lawyer. >> albert cheng >> acheng@uiuc.ARPA >/* Written 7:48 am Feb 2, 1985 by gwyn@brl-tgr in haddock:net.unix-wizar */ >I think DMR is entitled to special dispensation. No, no. DMR is entitled to GRANT special dispensation. Since when do demi-gods ever need dispensation? Rob Adams, INTERACTIVE Systems, Corp. {decvax!cca,ihnp4}!rob