LEICHTER@VENUS.YCC.YALE.EDU ("Jerry Leichter ", LEICHTER-JERRY@CS.YALE.EDU) (12/26/87)
In response to a recent query, I posted C code for these programs to INFOVAX. elsie!ado@ncifcrf.gov wrote to me pointing out that the SCCS headers for the code made it look like it came from the Berkeley distribution tapes. The header on UUENCODE.C is: #ifndef lint static char sccsid[] = "@(#)uuencode.c 5.1 (Berkeley) 7/2/83"; #endif (UUDECODE.C is similar.) He later checked and, he says, has determined that the code was, indeed derived from the Berkeley distribution - someone added VMS conditional code. He is "canceling the article and informing other system administrators"; I assume this refers to UUCP sites, since I know of no way to cancel the ARPA or BITNET forwardings, as he asked me to do. In any case, even if I had a way to cancel, the message, I would probably decline to do so. I think the reasons are worth discussing: - While I don't know exactly where I picked up this code from, I do know it was from a general posting to some list. The dates on the files I have are November 17th, 1987. - The header in the file does not constitute a legal notification of any sort. Anyone can put any sccsid string they like into their code. The only clue that this might, just might possibly be related to the Berkeley distribution is the single word "Berkeley" in the header. - I never signed a license agreement with Berkeley, AT&T, or anyone else, and have no easy access to Unix sources here. (I suppose I could get to them if I wanted to, but I've never had any particular reason to.) - As far as I am aware no one raised any objection to the original posting. Unix source code is protected under trade secrecy agreements, not copyright. Once such secrecy is breached, about all the previous holder of rights can do is go after whoever breached the rights. Absent any visible attempt to do that, Berkeley has probably lost any rights they may have had to this software. - The message I posted contained code specifically intended for use on VMS. This was certainly not in the original Berkeley code. I am informed that the code was "clearly derived from" the Berkeley code, but I don't know that from my own knowledge, nor do I have any easy way to check. In any case, If it came down to it, that would be a matter for the courts to decide. These programs are, in any case, rather simple, and it's not clear how much reasonable implementations might actually differ. I believe in protecting intellectual property, source code included, but I'll be damned if I'm going to take on the role of policing every bit of code floating around the net. You want your source code protected? (a) Don't make it widely available; (b) Include prominent notices of your claims within the code itself; (c) Aggressively and publically claim your rights against anyone who violates them. (Note that anyone REMOVING a notice as in (b) is likely to be dealt with rather harshly by the courts; by removing it, he was essentially recognizing its validity.) As far as I can tell, Berkeley seems to have violated ALL THREE of these conditions. -- Jerry