shwake@raysnec.UUCP (Ray Shwake) (07/23/90)
In article <1990Jul19.142101.26048@pegasus.com> richard@pegasus.com (Richard Foulk) writes: > >I must admit that it has been quite some time since I've read a Unix >license agreement. But the ones I have read bore no resemblance to >this description. > >The AT&T license is necessarily separate since it doesn't apply to the >porters code. Sorry Charlie. *You* don't get the AT&T license; your vendor does. That license gives the vendor the right to resell based on the licensed code. It's sometimes called a Distribution Sub-license. INTERACTIVE's license, for example, includes the following statement: "The Software and its copyrights are owned by INTERACTIVE or its suppliers". And we know who at least one of those suppliers are. 8-)