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.