Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decva...@bnl.ARPA
From: John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Unix trade secret
Message-ID: <7260@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sat, 12-Jan-85 19:12:40 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7260
Posted: Sat Jan 12 19:12:40 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 00:49:43 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 14
I know a university that allows the public to access their Vax. There
is a guest account with an easily guessed password. From this account
you can download the entire 4.2Bsd source code using umodem.
I'm sure AT&T could sue the university and win. The question is what could
AT&T do if Joe Random called up, downloaded the Unix kernel, and then put it
on a BBS? Sure they could sue this person and keep him in court for years,
but could they win?
Any legel minds on the net care to comment on this situation?
--
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
j...@BNL.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!
genra...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
From: lau...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Unix and AT&T
Message-ID: <7267@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Sun, 13-Jan-85 06:36:58 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7267
Posted: Sun Jan 13 06:36:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 15-Jan-85 01:02:38 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 32
I'm getting somewhat disgusted at these messages trying to find
ways to ridicule the Unix trade secret agreements by poking holes
in this or that. It's as if people are now saying that since
AT&T *didn't* behave in a dictatorial manner when handling Unix
licenses (by not making *every* person who *touches* the system
sign *everything*, and not designing the system so that *nothing* was
readable, etc.) they are now subject to being laughed at. People
seem to be saying that since AT&T *didn't* act like a scrooge
when it came to making the system available, and *didn't* play
big brother watching over all Unix users 24/hrs/day, they are
now fair game for ridicule. Hogwash.
I think these attitudes show a profound lack of ethics, regardless
of the legal issues (and those issues are considerably
more complex than messages in this list might lead one
to believe -- there's been one hell of a lot of MISinformation
being passed around this list on this topic.)
I'd like to know where some of these Unix gurus would be today
if AT&T hadn't used trade secret licensing (just about the only
way they had to make Unix available at the time) in the manner
they did. Most likely many of you would be spending all your
time doing FORTRAN programming on a TOPS-20 system today.
(No, I'm not knocking TOPS-20 -- not here, anyway...)
I for one (and I don't care if I'm a cult of one on this score)
think that AT&T deserves one hell of a lot more respect on this
issue than many people seem to be giving them.
A personal opinion, of course.
--Lauren--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!
genrad!...@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.csnet@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: Unix and AT&T
Message-ID: <7294@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 03:02:32 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7294
Posted: Mon Jan 14 03:02:32 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 16-Jan-85 16:14:23 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 23
RE: Message of Lauren Weinstein....
Hear, hear. I agree. One of UNIX's strongest features
is the wide availability of the sources to everything
and it's design which makes it very source supportable
by reasonably able people. I have wasted more of my
life on systems that either wouldn't release the sources
at a reasonable price (or any price) or, when you got
the sources, were so impenetrable that they were nearly
useless. It would be sad to see AT&T bitten badly because
of their sanity. It would be worse yet to see them lose
that sanity, I think some of the reactions in this column
have been over fears of the latter (like all the unbundling
now going on.)
Unfortunately, lawyers will decide all this which means most
anything could happen.
-Barry Shein
i = 0 ;
^ Bona fide UNIX trademarked source code!
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!...@bnl.ARPA
From: John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7313@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 14:47:40 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7313
Posted: Mon Jan 14 14:47:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:39:31 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 25
I'm happy that you two are able to obtain Unix source code at a reasonable
price. AT&T wants $40k from me. Maybe if AT&T were doing something nice for
me I might not think about holes in their license. I'm just a single hacker,
not connected to any university that got Unix cheap, so it costs me the full
$40k if I want the sources legally. All your comments about how easy it is
to change Unix, how enlightened AT&T is to make it available cheap, and how
much better off we all are because AT&T is like this: THEY DONT APPLY TO
PEOPLE WHO ARENT AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CANT
AFFORD $40,000. While
there is some argument that everybody is better off because Berkeley got
Unix cheap, that isnt enough to satisfy me. When I get Unix running on my
own desktop machine I will want to make changes to the system that will
require sources. Since paying $40k is out of the question, my only choices
are to (1) steal the sources, (2) do without, or (3) scrap Unix and use
something that I can get sources to. If GNU works out then #3 will be a real
option, but right now it isnt. Being of low moral standards I would probably
choose #1 over #2. I'm not alone in this thinking. Lots of people have stolen
source tapes so they will have it when they need it.
So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being
nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let
them eat binaries" to the rest of us.
--
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl
j...@BNL.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!
panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!root%bostonu.cs...@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA
From: BostonU SysMgr <root%bostonu.cs...@CSNET-RELAY.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7334@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 20:52:10 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7334
Posted: Mon Jan 14 20:52:10 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:45:35 EST
Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 20
Universities get the sources cheap because they are willing to enter
into agreements to allow AT&T to retain ownership of software developed
on such systems (in general.) Universities can enter into such
contracts. If your business was willing to sign such a thing AT&T might
let you have it also but I doubt your business is interested as it wants
to make money (like AT&T.) If a university decides otherwise then it,
too, has to purchase a commercial agreement...no difference as far as I
understand.
As for personal computing (a different subject) I agree, there is a real
problem here. Especially because so many personal computerists have
dreams of becoming businesses so they are not that special a case. For
this reason (confusion?) and others I am completely supportive of RMS's
GNU efforts and have several times offered to be of help where I can.
There is no conflict of ideas here, AT&T was nice to give Universities
source licenses for free, other ideas are nice too (GNU), some are not
so nice (paying for things I guess), so what?
-Barry Shein
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!...@bnl.ARPA
From: John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7336@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 21:33:40 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7336
Posted: Mon Jan 14 21:33:40 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 01:49:12 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 53
>Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 12:47:43 PST
>From: Lauren Weinstein <vortex!lauren@RAND-UNIX.ARPA>
>
>Oh I see, I must have misunderstood you. What you were saying, I guess,
>is that if *YOU* don't like the price of something, you feel fine
>about stealing it, or at the very least trying to find some "quasi-legal"
>loophole for ripping it off.
>
>I hope they watch you when you're in department or jewelry stores.
I dont think the department or jewelry store analogy holds up. If I were to
steal something from such a store, the net result would be that I would have
it and they would not. If a get a copy of a Unix tape, I have it and AT&T
still has it. Furthermore, AT&T has not lost a sale to me because I would
never be able to buy it in the first place. This sounds like a excuse for
software ripoffs of any sort, and in a way it is. With me it is a question of
degrees. I dont think this excuse holds up when the software is priced
reasonably. If somebody used this as an excuse for pirating a $50 program I
would probably give them hell for it. But we aren't talking about small
amounts here. We are talking about FOURTY THOUSAND DOLLARS. No individual
can afford to pay that much.
You are saying that only big corporations and educational institutions should
be able to modify Unix. Small users should all go to their binaryendor when
they want something changed. THAT STINKS. Standard Vendor Support has been
discussed in Unix-Wizards before. If your problem is shared with enough other
users it may get fixed sooner or (more likely) later. If you want something
special, either forget it or hand over huge sums to pay for your changes. The
small user with special needs is locked out.
When the computer needed to run Unix cost over $100k it was OK to charge $40k
for the sources. Only the big guys had the required computers and they were
used to paying that much. Now anybody can run Unix on a PC/XT (badly, but it
can be done) or on a PC/AT. When the hardware costs under $10k it just isnt
reasonable to charge $40k for the operating system.
I'm sure you will continue to think I am a common thief and I know that I
will continue to think I'm not that bad. Nothing either of us can say is
going to change the others thinking, so how about addressing the real issue in
all of this:
What good are all the benefits of "cheap" Unix and the ease of
modification to binary only people (who are either already the
majority of Unix users or soon will be)?
You said nothing on the subject. Does your silence mean you agree that small
users are left out in the cold (but that they deserve their fate because they
cant afford a $40k source license)?
--
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
j...@BNL.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!...@BRL-VLD.ARPA
From: Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 14-Jan-85 23:04:23 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7338
Posted: Mon Jan 14 23:04:23 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 04:42:43 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 16
Just because you want something does not mean you have a claim on it.
UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for
access to it that is their right. Of course they would be foolish to
do so, but they also have the right to be fools.
The mass market of UNIX will consist of people who have no need to
mess around with their O.S. internals. Adaptations of UNIX to these
packages will be made by OEMs and VARs who will pay the license fee
and amortize the cost over all the systems they will sell. You too
can form a company to remarket UNIX, or you can develop your own copy
from scratch. If you think that would cost you more than $43,000
(and you would be right about that!), then you should admit that what
AT&T has to offer is indeed WORTH what they are asking.
I would love a $40,000 automobile, but I do not gripe at Ferrari for
not selling it to me for $500.
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!teddy!
panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!...@bnl.ARPA
From: John McNamee <j...@bnl.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7340@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 00:25:13 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7340
Posted: Tue Jan 15 00:25:13 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 04:43:13 EST
Sender: n...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 46
>Universities get the sources cheap because they are willing to enter
>into agreements to allow AT&T to retain ownership of software developed
>on such systems (in general.) Universities can enter into such
>contracts. If your business was willing to sign such a thing AT&T might
>let you have it also but I doubt your business is interested as it wants
>to make money (like AT&T.)
What business? I'm not a business. That is the whole problem. I would probably
be happy to sign such an agreement. I'm not out to make money by selling Unix
programs, just to have a nice environment to hack at home.
>As for personal computing (a different subject) I agree, there is a real
>problem here. Especially because so many personal computerists have
>dreams of becoming businesses so they are not that special a case.
That is exactly what I'm trying to say. Now that most hackers can afford
to get a machine with enough power to run Unix, there is a need for
individuals to have Unix sources. I agree that many PC hackers have dreams
of turning their programming into a business, but most of the time it is
nothing more than a dream and thus is not an issue.
>....For
>this reason (confusion?) and others I am completely supportive of RMS's
>GNU efforts and have several times offered to be of help where I can.
If I were a better Unix-Wizard I would probably help RMS too. GNU holds
a lot of promise, but it is only vaporware right now. When it is finished
maybe the problems I describe will go away, but until then GNU really doesnt
enter into the discussion.
>There is no conflict of ideas here, AT&T was nice to give Universities
>source licenses for free, other ideas are nice too (GNU), some are not
>so nice (paying for things I guess), so what?
I sent my message in reply to one Lauren sent saying how nice AT&T was and
that the people who were trying to find holes in the Unix license were jerks.
What I got out of his message was "AT&T is doing you all a big favor, so why
are you biting the hand the feeds you?" My point is that AT&T isnt doing me,
and other hackers like me, any favors with their pricing structure. I'm upset
that Lauren makes it sound like AT&T is being nice to everybody, when in fact
they are only doing favors for educational institutions.
--
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
j...@BNL.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!...@bnl.ARPA
From: John McNamee <jpm@bnl.ARPA>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix - The real issue
Message-ID: <7366@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 16:09:15 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7366
Posted: Tue Jan 15 16:09:15 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 03:15:45 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 50
On January 14 I sent out a flame about the cost of Unix source code for
people not at educational institutions. It was in reply to messages from
Lauren Weinstein and Barry Shein. They were saying that AT&T is being very
nice and we should ALL be thankful that they give sources away cheap.
Neither made any mention of the fact that sources are only cheap if you
are an educational institution, and that Joe Random Hacker (thats me) is
left out in the cold when he wants sources for his home Unix machine.
Included in my flame were comments about what a hacker can do if he wants
Unix sources for his machine. One of the options is to steal them. I said
that I would probably do that rather than go without. That is against the
law (unless there is a hole in the AT&T license, which I think there is,
but I dont have the money for legal fees to be a test case). Its not that
I am the only person who ever thought of stealing the Unix sources (recent
postings to Unix-Wizards indicate that lots of people have already done it),
its just that I said so in public.
I have a talent for saying in public that I do things that lots of other
people do, but they just keep quiet about it. So I eat sh*t for it, and most
people can pat themselves on the back for being Mr. or Mrs. Morality and
telling me what a jerk I am. Of course they will continue to ignore the real
problem, having focused instead on what a bad person I am.
Here is my origial message again, minus any statement about stealing sources.
Would anybody care to comment on the REAL issue here, or do you all think that
small users are left out in the cold, but derserve it because they cant afford
a $40k source license?
>To: lauren@rand-unix, root%bostonu.csnet@csnet-relay
>Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
>
>I'm happy that you two are able to obtain Unix source code at a reasonable
>price. AT&T wants $40k from me. Maybe if AT&T were doing something nice for
>me I might not think about holes in their license. I'm just a single hacker,
>not connected to any university that got Unix cheap, so it costs me the full
>$40k if I want the sources legally. All your comments about how easy it is
>to change Unix, how enlightened AT&T is to make it available cheap, and how
>much better off we all are because AT&T is like this: THEY DONT APPLY TO
>PEOPLE WHO ARENT AT EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS AND CANT
>AFFORD $40,000. While
>there is some argument that everybody is better off because Berkeley got
>Unix cheap, that isnt enough to satisfy me.
> ....
>So before you start saying how nice AT&T is, think about who they are being
>nice to. To you they may be giving cheap sources, but they are saying "Let
>them eat binaries" to the rest of us.
--
John McNamee
..!decvax!philabs!sbcs!bnl!jpm
j...@BNL.ARPA
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!
genra...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
From: lau...@RAND-UNIX.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <7372@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Tue, 15-Jan-85 16:55:52 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7372
Posted: Tue Jan 15 16:55:52 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 20-Jan-85 05:50:32 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 26
Actually, I sent the department store analogy message just to you,
not to the list. Though this message is going to both, since you
saw fit to forward my private mail to you to the entire list.
I think what really irks you is that it is possible to get the source
at all! If the source were unavailable at ANY price to ANYONE, then
you might complain less. Maybe. Note that source for many microcomputer
programs (including the extremely popular mass-market ones, many of
which have presumably brought their authors far more income that AT&T
has made from Unix to date!) is often completely unavailable. And that
decision is the right of the software author.
People selling and distributing software have the clear right to
determine the distribution means and prices for their products.
The fact that the product is easily copied does not change anything
at all -- the protection of intellectual property rights is firmly
grounded in law (though obviously not accepted by you).
You seem to be setting yourself up as judge and jury. You sit around
deciding that it's "OK" to rip off an expensive piece of software, but
you draw the line at a $50 package. There are people sitting around
in prisons who have used similar reasoning in other (not so different)
contexts. Yes, I consider what you seem to be advocating to be common
theft, and nothing less.
--Lauren--
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!bellcore!decvax!genrad!
teddy!panda!talcott!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!ron@BRL-TGR
From: Ron Natalie <ron@BRL-TGR>
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Trade Secrets and Ripping of ATT
Message-ID: <7470@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Date: Thu, 17-Jan-85 11:59:30 EST
Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.7470
Posted: Thu Jan 17 11:59:30 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 01:20:29 EST
Sender: ne...@brl-tgr.ARPA
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab
Lines: 19
It's amazing how out of hand this gets. This all started because
someone wanted to know whether the output of YACC contains proprietary
code in it. Chances are that by Trade Secret law the answer is no.
If you don't use the provided parser, the answer is certainly no.
Verdict: If you're worried use your own parser or one provided for
the public domain by the Software Tools group.
Just because some aspect of UNIX isn't secret anymore doesn't give you
the right to steal the source and use it. Perhaps the operation of UNIX
isn't secret anymore. The manuals are available anywhere and AT&T does
not discourage people from talking about it (some vendors like UNIVAC
require people to be bound by the proprietary agreements at conferences).
AT&T doesn't seem to be interested in challenging this. IDRIS, COHERENT,
etc... are examples of people who use the public knowledge of what UNIX
does to make their own compatilbe product. The source code (how it does
it) is a different matter however. AT&T still enforces secrecy agreements
on the source code and descriptions on how the source code operates.
-Ron
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!
seismo!hao!hplabs!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff
From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.legal
Subject: Re: Unix and AT&T (flame)
Message-ID: <316@desint.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 18-Jan-85 01:29:13 EST
Article-I.D.: desint.316
Posted: Fri Jan 18 01:29:13 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 21-Jan-85 04:29:18 EST
References: <7294@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Organization: his home computer, Manhattan Beach, CA
Lines: 62
Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:11642 net.legal:1339
In article <7294@brl-tgr.ARPA> Barry Shein writes:
>RE: Message of Lauren Weinstein....
>
>Hear, hear. I agree. One of UNIX's strongest features
>is the wide availability of the sources to everything
>and it's design which makes it very source supportable
>by reasonably able people. I have wasted more of my
>life on systems that either wouldn't release the sources
>at a reasonable price (or any price) or, when you got
>the sources, were so impenetrable that they were nearly
>useless. It would be sad to see AT&T bitten badly because
>of their sanity. It would be worse yet to see them lose
>that sanity, I think some of the reactions in this column
>have been over fears of the latter (like all the unbundling
>now going on.)
Hang on there, Lauren and Barry! Let's remember that this started out as a
question as to whether AT&T has the right to prohibit you from selling a
yacc-based program "because it includes /usr/lib/yaccpar". The rest of the
discussion has been a legalistic one about whether they could make that
claim stand up in court. It is not unnatural to extend such a discussion
to the more general question of whether AT&T could make ANY trade secret
claim about Unix stand up in court. Most of these messages have been cross-
posted to net.legal, where this discussion belongs -- it's only in unix-
wizards because of the original note about yaccpar.
I cannot remember a single person stating or even implying that they approved
of stealing any part of Unix. I certainly would not like to see AT&T lose
its ownership of Unix, because I think that would lead to impossible
fragmentation of versions. But that does not prevent me from noticing that
AT&T has been rather sloppy in an area where the law does not permit
sloppiness. Perhaps AT&T should be forgiven for being sloppy because they
were good guys; to my mind that's a political question.
As to the original note about yaccpar, I am of the opinion that an attempt to
restrict the sale of yacc-derived parsers (other than perhaps collecting a
fair royalty on the yaccpar part) is restraint of trade. You can fight that
with antitrust law, or you can fight it with the trade secret law. The
principle that disallows patents, copyrights, and trade secrets on
knowledge available to the general public is designed to prevent such
restraint of trade. In fact, (here I go again shooting my mouth off about
something I know nothing about) I wouldn't be surprised if you could beat
a royalty attempt on yaccpar by proving that it was substantially similar to
the one published by the Software Tools people. That's an interesting part
of trade secret law that I don't know enough about.
In any case, I'm not suggesting stealing Unix (though I would fight an
attempt to keep me from selling yacc-processed programs just as hard as an
attempt to collect a royalty on cc-compiled programs). I *am* suggesting
that AT&T continue its efforts to clean up its act (much as that causes
pain to the small 68000-type companies). And I am also suggesting that
AT&T had better face up to the fact that part (not all, I hope) of Unix has
found its way into the public domain, and be prepared to deal with that
fact when somebody *does* try to do something unethical. Personally, I'd
like AT&T Unix to include a directory full of "supported public domain
software". Seems a pity for AT&T to not use its muscle to standardize
things like the strings packages and give them good support.
--
Geoff Kuenning
...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!mcnc!
decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa
From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast))
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <558@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 24-Jan-85 01:20:54 EST
Article-I.D.: ncoast.558
Posted: Thu Jan 24 01:20:54 1985
Date-Received: Sun, 27-Jan-85 07:46:47 EST
References: <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA>
Reply-To: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery (the tame hacker on the North Coast))
Organization: The North Coast Xenix System, Cleveland
Lines: 28
Summary:
> Article <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA>, from Doug Gwyn (VLD/VMB) <gwyn@BRL-VLD.ARPA>
+----------------
| Just because you want something does not mean you have a claim on it.
| UNIX is AT&T's property and if they want to ask a million dollars for
| access to it that is their right. Of course they would be foolish to
| do so, but they also have the right to be fools.
| ...
| You too can form a company to remarket UNIX, or you can develop your own copy
| from scratch. If you think that would cost you more than $43,000
| (and you would be right about that!), then you should admit that what
| AT&T has to offer is indeed WORTH what they are asking.
And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES?
Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which
(with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix --
get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? While this
was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone
else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities,
or it lowers prices to us.
Don't dodge his question, d*mn it.
--bsa
--
Brandon Allbery @ decvax!cwruecmp!ncoast!bsa (..ncoast!tdi1!bsa business)
6504 Chestnut Road, Independence, Ohio 44131 +1 216 524 1416 (or what have you)
Who said you had to be (a) a poor programmer or (b) a security hazard
to be a hacker?
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84 chuqui version 1.7 9/23/84; site nsc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!dciem!nrcaero!pesnta!amd!nsc!chuqui
From: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui)
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: Re: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <2287@nsc.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 26-Jan-85 21:41:45 EST
Article-I.D.: nsc.2287
Posted: Sat Jan 26 21:41:45 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 28-Jan-85 02:16:24 EST
References: <7338@brl-tgr.ARPA> <558@ncoast.UUCP>
Reply-To: chuqui@nsc.UUCP (Chuqui)
Organization: The Warlocks Cave
Lines: 57
Summary:
In article <558@ncoast.UUCP> bsa@ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
>And, again, you miss the point of his posting. Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES?
>Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which
>(with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix --
>get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't? While this
>was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone
>else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities,
>or it lowers prices to us.
>
>Don't dodge his question, d*mn it.
Well, I'll try to not dodge the question, although I doubt you'll like the
answer.
I think the main reason they 'play favorites' with Unix is because the
educational institutions are the ones that have made Unix what it is
today-- they started by giving it away to them because they had to-- the
regulatory agencies that helped run AT&T while it was the phone company
wouldn't let them sell it. So, there is a history of this two level sales
system. The reason they still do it has a minor reason and a major
reason-- I'm sure they get a tax break for the educational donation, and by
making it available to schools, they are sure to develop entire generations
of computers freaks who demand to work on Unix, thereby setting up a long
term market for their products. Apple, of course, is doing the same for the
II and the Mac in the elementary, high, and University atmospheres, and
rather successfully as well. Giving away the source to small 'hackers'
doesn't have any advantage to AT&T-- you aren't bringing up future hackers
in a volume they could notice, they don't get tax breaks because you aren't
a charitable organization, and the licensing (AT&T seems to kill three or
four trees each time someone wants a license) would severely outstrip any
moneys they might get or any long term advantages they might see. Plus,
they really don't have anything in a hacker group to ensure they will keep
to the licensing agreements. Schools have lawyers they can beat on,
companies that put out 45K are serious enough to know they don't want
AT&T's lawyers coming down on them. What could they do to a hacker that got
a low cost license and then proceeded to post the sources to net.sources?
Take away his computer? Big deal.
Personally, I think the current situation is fair. The alternative,
realistically, is no source at all. They attempted that with the Blit
drivers and got beaten back. Hopefully, AT&T has learned that Unix simply
won't survive without source, but they also need to be given the ability to
make a reasonable profit (to fund further Unix development, of course) and
to make sure that their proprietary materials are protected. And, much as I
wish it wasn't, until someone goes to court and talks a court into removing
the restrictions, Unix source is proprietary. You wanna take on their
lawyers? I don't....
chuq
--
From the ministry of silly talks: Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!c...@decwrl.ARPA
God is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
---
National Semiconductor does not require useless disclaimers on posted
material that is obviously not posted by company spokesmen...
Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!alice!dutoit!dmr
From: dmr@dutoit.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards
Subject: AT&T and Unix
Message-ID: <2002@dutoit.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 28-Jan-85 02:27:16 EST
Article-I.D.: dutoit.2002
Posted: Mon Jan 28 02:27:16 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 29-Jan-85 05:07:59 EST
Lines: 30
Although this is indeed not a good forum to discuss licensing issues,
I can't resist.
Brandon Allbery wonders why AT&T provides source licenses for Unix
at low cost to educational institutions (which must, by the way,
be degree-granting, and which also must use the system for educational
purposes only: if they use it for administration or other such things
they pay more).
The policy of educational licenses has been in effect for a
long time (since well before Unix) and is generally defended internally
by reasons such as these:
1) General social benefit by supporting education
2) Increased visibility and better communication for Bell Labs within
the scientific community.
Giving licenses to anyone who asks (or even who certifies that he
is just a little guy who promises not to compete) is not in the cards.
In another letter, Chuqui von R. displays a couple of misapprehensions:
First, AT&T does not get any tax break out of cheap source licenses for
universities. To write off a donation, you must give it free and
clear. As has been discussed at length here, licenses are licenses
to use; AT&T still owns the source. Thus no donation.
Second, AT&T didn't "have to" give educational licenses. There were
commercial licenses years before divestiture.
Dennis Ritchie