Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends

			      USENET Archives

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!decvax!harpo!floyd!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!
From: mcg@tekecs.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Unix source code...
Message-ID: <1410@tekecs.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 14-Jun-83 16:15:24 EDT
Article-I.D.: tekecs.1410
Posted: Tue Jun 14 16:15:24 1983
Date-Received: Thu, 16-Jun-83 01:24:22 EDT
Lines: 49

WRT Lauren's note about submitting UNIX source code to the net:

------- Forwarded Message

Date: 14 Jun 1983 at 1311-PDT (Tuesday)
From: mcg (Steven McGeady)
To: tektronix!"vortex!lauren"@LBL-CSAM,tektronix!lauren@UCLA-SECURITY
Subject: Re: Unix source code...
In-reply-to: Your message of Tuesday, 14-Jun-83 04:18:44 PDT.

My message contained less code that is typically contained in
"bug fixes" to the kernel and various other software. Although
there are no explicit references, I have always followed the
rule that if someone cannot construct a program or any major
algorithms from the distributed code, it is OK to distribute.

Thus, this rule prevents someone from sending even a few lines
if those few lines embody an algorithm which is important
to the application. On the other hand, it would allow someone
to send nearly a whole module, if it was impossible to
deduce the remainder of the code.

I have given a fair amount of thought to this, and believe
that I acted in good faith, providing an exposition that
few (if any) persons without UUCP source code could
benefit from. This is also consistent with the practice
of distributing bug fixes over the network.

If you have a different view of the legalities of the
situation, or (better yet) personal experience which would
invalidate my position, I would be interested in hearing about
it. I'm certainly not saying I'm not possibly wrong, I just
don't see it yet.

S. McGeady -  stevenm.tektronix@rand-relay
Tektronix, Inc.

BTW, since my submission was made from the USENET, rather than from
ARPA, the moderator would only get the choice as to whether to
distribute it to ARPA or not, if that. The message would have been
already flying around the UUCP part of the network.

------- End of Forwarded Message

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!genrad!mit-eddi!mit-vax!eagle!harpo!seismo!hao!hplabs!
From: lauren%rand-unix@sri-unix.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Unix Source Code
Message-ID: <2262@sri-arpa.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 17-Jun-83 04:55:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: sri-arpa.2262
Posted: Fri Jun 17 04:55:00 1983
Date-Received: Sun, 19-Jun-83 17:16:10 EDT
Lines: 20

My earlier reply on this topic was not CC'd to this list, so let
me comment briefly here.  I recently (in a private message) expressed
some concern over the insertion of Unix source code "fragments" into
messages, usually in the form of "bug fixes".  While I fully agree
that the network represents a useful medium for the dissemination
of bug repairs, I'd like to make sure that some users don't forget
that, according to the letter of the Unix license agreements, the
sending of source code to persons not similarly licensed is not
permitted.  While "fragments" might be viewed differently, I for
one wouldn't want to be the one trying to decide where to draw
the line, and I have already seen some cases (over on Usenet) where
substantial portions of licensed source code may have been rather
freely distributed.

The moral here, I guess, is to please be careful when sending
messages that involve Unix source.  If anybody out there really
understands the contractual issues involved in this topic, I'm
sure we'd all appreciate hearing from you.  Thanks for your attention...


			        About USENET

USENET (Users’ Network) was a bulletin board shared among many computer
systems around the world. USENET was a logical network, sitting on top
of several physical networks, among them UUCP, BLICN, BERKNET, X.25, and
the ARPANET. Sites on USENET included many universities, private companies
and research organizations. See USENET Archives.

		       SCO Files Lawsuit Against IBM

March 7, 2003 - The SCO Group filed legal action against IBM in the State 
Court of Utah for trade secrets misappropriation, tortious interference, 
unfair competition and breach of contract. The complaint alleges that IBM 
made concentrated efforts to improperly destroy the economic value of 
UNIX, particularly UNIX on Intel, to benefit IBM's Linux services 
business. See SCO vs IBM.

The materials and information included in this website may only be used
for purposes such as criticism, review, private study, scholarship, or

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb: