Technology and Trends
 USENET Archives
  
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!
uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Unix sources -- hangman --> licensed Unix source code?
Message-ID: <1008@uw-beaver>
Date: Sat, 30-Jun-84 09:34:03 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beaver>.1008
Posted: Sat Jun 30 09:34:03 1984
Date-Received: Tue, 3-Jul-84 02:47:10 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 25

From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lau...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
There is apparently some concern within AT&T entities which read
INFO-MAC regarding the "hangman" sources that an INFO-MAC
person recently made available to the readership of this list.

I might point out that as far as I know, those hangman sources
are covered by the Unix source license agreement, as is the
word list that the same person decided to distribute.  The original
Unix hangman game with which I am familiar (and on which most other
versions were based) was indeed licensed code, and I know for a fact
that the word list is definitely considered to be licensed as well.

Unless there is convincing evidence to the contrary, please be
warned that the use or distribution of those materials, unless you
have the appropriate Unix licenses for THE MACHINE ON WHICH
YOU ARE USING THOSE MATERIALS (i.e. your MAC!) could result in 
serious legal action by AT&T.

In general, it is NOT legal to just run around porting anyone's
sources or other materials and freely use/distribute them, unless you are
ABSOLUTELY certain that they do not contain materials which were
part of licensed software.

--Lauren--

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!
uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Re: hangman goes to jail
Message-ID: <1039@uw-beaver>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 06:06:42 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1039
Posted: Tue Jul  3 06:06:42 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 03:32:29 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 42

From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lau...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
As I pointed out originally, the complexity of source exchanges between
some parties (including Berkeley and AT&T) has made it increasingly
difficult to accurately determine where code originated.  I have at 
least one version of hangman from a very old Unix release that appears to
share common code with the MAC version (the former was pre-graphics,
of course).  This is similar to the problems with "vi," where chunks
of "ed" were (and still are, aren't they?) included in the Berkeley
code.  But let's face it, the world hardly lives or dies based
on the ownership of a relatively simple game program.

In my original message about hangman, I stated that if there was
convincing evidence that the code in question (the particular
implementation of hangman) were non-ATT, then the port is clearly
OK.  The dictionary presents a different problem.  I don't believe that
simply deleting words from a work changes the original ownership
of the work!  There is a court case pending now, I believe, regarding
a version of a spelling list that was modified from some public domain
spelling program, that turned out to have been based on a commercial
dictionary list from Random House or some such.  It is unclear what
will happen in this case, since countersuits are apparently appearing
hot and heavy.  The interesting thing is that the problem was brought
on by the public domain distribution of a modified word list that
was originally part of a copyrighted work.  One can only hope that
something will be left by the time the lawyers are finished.

My biggest gripe is not with either commercial software nor public
domain software.  It is with the "cavalier" attitude with which some
people seem to feel that when it comes to software, agreements
don't mean anything from a moral or ethical standpoint.  Of course,
this doesn't apply just to software--this attitude pervades
our society in many ways and is a way of life for many.

I apologize for the editorializing.  By the way, thanks much
for the info about disk drives and such.  It looks like it's now
becoming possible to put enough extra equipment on the MAC
to make it truly useful.  I still can't help but wish that it
had been somewhat more "richly" configured from the start, but
that's certainly water under the ol' bridge.

--Lauren--

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!
houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Unix sources -- hangman --> licensed Unix source code?
Message-ID: <1043@uw-beaver>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 10:43:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1043
Posted: Tue Jul  3 10:43:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 23:43:34 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 21

From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE@MIT-MC>
Do you not go too far in your generalization?  I would imagine
that just how much of what can be restricted how depends on what
law one relies on for protection.  After teh Franklin/APple case
it's likely that courts will hold that object code as well as
sources are protected by copyright; but copyright has got some
severe restrictions and limits built right into the law.
	License law can't be applied to innocent use by third
parties.  Posession of copyrighted materials can be ambiguous.
The whole matter is unsettled.  Agreed, one is best off being
careful; but "contains materials which were part of licensed
software" may be a bit broad.  Just what is subject to copyright
in computer code?  We haven't really settled that in literary
law, although we do have some cases; in softare and computer
code it is considerably more ambiguous.  How many lines must be
identical?  If not identical, but accomplish the same thing, how
many points of similarity constitute infringement?  (IE using
the same code but putting results in different registers and
different memory locations would probably be an infringement...)
	OH Well.  It will  make a great column think piece.