Tech Insider					     Technology and Trends


			      USENET Archives

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!dayton!ems!mark
From: m...@ems.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <142@ems.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 3-Feb-87 21:05:33 EST
Article-I.D.: ems.142
Posted: Tue Feb  3 21:05:33 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Feb-87 19:16:56 EST
Sender: n...@ems.UUCP
Reply-To: m...@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn)
Distribution: world
Organization: EMS/McGraw-Hill, Eden Prairie
Lines: 26


	Sigh!  I spent a week tracking down the person who I got the 
	YACC sources from, just to make sure that the source was indeed 
	in the public domain before I posted it.  I really did, I tried.  
	He lied.

	I got a message from an individual on the net who compared the
	source to the AT&T distribution.  He said that the code looked 
	a lot like the AT&T version.  I decided that I had best make 
	sure that the source was or was not AT&T proprietary.

	After much hasseling, I finally got a look at the AT&T version 
	of the source code.  Not only does it look very similar, in many 
	places it is exactly the same.  Some of the comments and code 
	have been removed/reworded/added to but that does not change 
	the fact that the source is a direct copy, or a derivative work 
	of the AT&T source.

	I have cancelled the articles that I sent out.  I urge (plead?)
	anybody that got a copy off the net to destroy it.  I have deleted 
	all copies of it that I had.

	Needless to say, I will not be posting the lex source which I got 
	from the same source that I got yacc from.

	I am sorry for the inconvience.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!ddl
From: d...@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <1170@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Feb-87 01:43:37 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1170
Posted: Wed Feb  4 01:43:37 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Feb-87 06:43:48 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 35

In article <1...@ems.UUCP>, m...@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes:
> 
> 	Sigh!  I spent a week tracking down the person who I got the 
> 	YACC sources from, just to make sure that the source was indeed 
> 	in the public domain before I posted it.  I really did, I tried.  
> 	He lied.
> 
> 	I got a message from an individual on the net who compared the
> 	source to the AT&T distribution.  He said that the code looked 
> 	a lot like the AT&T version.  I decided that I had best make 
> 	sure that the source was or was not AT&T proprietary.

	Just because it looks like the AT&T source doesn't mean it is
a derivative work.  It was my impression that there was a public domain
yacc which was derived from the same source as the AT&T yacc--but not
FROM the AT&T yacc.  This yacc (and a lex) are being sold for the IBM
PC by some small company and the code also looks a lot like AT&T yacc.
	Now the point of all this is that we should avoid setting a
dangerous precedent:  AT&T's proprietary rights (if any) should not
be allowed to extend retroactively to code that they have acquired
elsewhere!  This is a great way to keep a monopoly on software, but
I don't *think* it makes legal sense.  If it does, I should grab
as much public domain code as I can and start legal action against
everyone else using it and and...
	In any case, it seems to me that once something has been
distributed in this way the proprietary status (if any) is kind of
lost.  Assuming that this yacc is indeed AT&T's yacc, can AT&T really
prosecute everyone who picks up a copy from the posting?  Don't they
have to show that they made some attempt to maintain secrecy?  Even
if they did (did they?) isn't there something about one person taking
in good faith some information and thereby removing its proprietary
status?  Can anyone clarify this?

					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: o...@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <464@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 4-Feb-87 23:17:28 EST
Article-I.D.: yetti.464
Posted: Wed Feb  4 23:17:28 1987
Date-Received: Thu, 5-Feb-87 18:40:55 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP>
Reply-To: o...@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Distribution: world
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 40

In article <1...@ems.UUCP> m...@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes:
>
>
>	I got a message from an individual on the net who compared the
>	source to the AT&T distribution.  He said that the code looked 
>	a lot like the AT&T version.  I decided that I had best make 
>	sure that the source was or was not AT&T proprietary.
>
>	After much hasseling, I finally got a look at the AT&T version 
>	of the source code.  Not only does it look very similar, in many 
>	places it is exactly the same.  Some of the comments and code 
>	have been removed/reworded/added to but that does not change 
>	the fact that the source is a direct copy, or a derivative work 
>	of the AT&T source.
>

	The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru
	this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind
	people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so
	that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program
	eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit
	it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. [Same thing
	happened with EMPIRE sources, but DECUS got a rap from the author,
	and withdrew the sources.]

	Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is
	crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking
	your company, yourself and the net..

	There is, however, one important point: Unless a copyright violation
	is challenged, copyrights may be lost. Something for AT&T to think
	about - someone *sells* this bloody thing !!.

	But than again, I said all of this before...

oz
-- 
The best way to have a 		Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
good idea is to have a 		Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti].BITNET
lot of ideas.			Phonet: [416] 736-5053 x 3976

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ames!oliveb!epimass!jbuck
From: jb...@epimass.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <867@epimass.UUCP>
Date: Thu, 5-Feb-87 16:42:44 EST
Article-I.D.: epimass.867
Posted: Thu Feb  5 16:42:44 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 15:46:46 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <1170@husc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck)
Distribution: world
Organization: Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, CA
Lines: 30
Summary: I wouldn't advise using it

In article <1...@husc6.UUCP> d...@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
>In article <1...@ems.UUCP>, m...@ems.UUCP (Mark H. Colburn) writes:
>> 
>> 	Sigh!  I spent a week tracking down the person who I got the 
>> 	YACC sources from, just to make sure that the source was indeed 
>> 	in the public domain before I posted it.  I really did, I tried.  
>> 	He lied.

>	In any case, it seems to me that once something has been
>distributed in this way the proprietary status (if any) is kind of
>lost.  Assuming that this yacc is indeed AT&T's yacc, can AT&T really
>prosecute everyone who picks up a copy from the posting?

Well, they could conceivably sue Mark Colburn, the backbone, every
news site, or whatever.  One big lawsuit and Usenet is gone.  I
recommend that everyone get rid of the posted yacc.  If you really
want a pd yacc, "bison" is available from the Gnu project, and you
won't be vulnerable to a suit.

There has already been the case of a site removing itself from the
net because someone at that site posted proprietary code.

Someone could post the entire Unix source to the net.  It would then
be in the public domain.  But AT&T would be entitled to recover
tens of millions of dollars in damages to everyone responsible, and
nontechnical people would decide who's responsible.  Everyone on the
net might be required to ante up.  It's scary to think about.
-- 
- Joe Buck 	{hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck	HASA (A,S)
  Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!ddl
From: d...@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <1179@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 6-Feb-87 03:23:46 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1179
Posted: Fri Feb  6 03:23:46 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 17:14:49 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <1170@husc6.UUCP> <867@epimass.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 46

In article <8...@epimass.UUCP>, jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
> Well, they could conceivably sue Mark Colburn, the backbone, every
> news site, or whatever.  One big lawsuit and Usenet is gone.  I
> recommend that everyone get rid of the posted yacc.  If you really
> want a pd yacc, "bison" is available from the Gnu project, and you
> won't be vulnerable to a suit.

	Bison is unfortunately not public domain but includes the rather
complicated copyright of the Free Software Foundation.  The properties
of this copyright are still being analyzed.  Several people have claimed
that a version of yacc appeared on a DECUS tape of public-domain software.
Tomorrow I will look through our DECUS tapes to try to confirm this.  But
if I find yacc source and it "looks" like AT&T code, does that mean it
is proprietary?  Isn't another possible explanation that a copy was
distributed before AT&T became interested in making unix proprietary?
Can AT&T "take back" such a distribution?

> There has already been the case of a site removing itself from the
> net because someone at that site posted proprietary code.
> 
> Someone could post the entire Unix source to the net.  It would then
> be in the public domain.  But AT&T would be entitled to recover
> tens of millions of dollars in damages to everyone responsible, and
> nontechnical people would decide who's responsible.  Everyone on the
> net might be required to ante up.  It's scary to think about.

	I somehow doubt that it would be in the public domain.  But
if it would, then yacc is, right?  Could someone who knows the "legal"
answers to these questions comment?  How could everyone on the net
be required to "ante up?"  How do you prove that any individual is
a net reader, or even a poster?  (Obviously, I'm not writing this;
it was forged by some evil hacker...)  Full unix sources are available
via anonymous ftp from many sites.  Does this make them public domain?
Does this make all users of the internet subject to legal action should
anyone take advantage of them?  Please, never be scared to think!
	I don't really want to play devil's advocate, but everyone
else seems to take the approach of treating much more than need be
as proprietary and pretending incidents like this one haven't happened
rather that understaning the true consequences.  And yes, I do believe in
intelectual property rights.  But I want to understand how they work,
and, if it turns out that they work only for entities powerful enough to
threaten an entire population with vague legal action, then I want
to gripe.

					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!tower
From: to...@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <3975@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Fri, 6-Feb-87 13:22:52 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.3975
Posted: Fri Feb  6 13:22:52 1987
Date-Received: Sat, 7-Feb-87 19:45:41 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <1170@husc6.UUCP> <867@epimass.UUCP>
Reply-To: to...@bu-cs.UUCP (Leonard H. Tower Jr.)
Distribution: world
Organization: Boston Univ. CS Dept.
Lines: 16
Keywords: bison gnu software freedom
Summary: How to get GNU software

In article <8...@epimass.UUCP> jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
   ...
   
   Well, they could conceivably sue Mark Colburn, the backbone, every
   news site, or whatever.  One big lawsuit and Usenet is gone.  I
   recommend that everyone get rid of the posted yacc.  If you really
   want a pd yacc, "bison" is available from the Gnu project, and you
   won't be vulnerable to a suit.
   
   - Joe Buck 	{hplabs,ihnp4,sun,ames}!oliveb!epimass!jbuck	HASA (A,S)
     Entropic Processing, Inc., Cupertino, California

If you want information on how to obtain bison and other GNU software,
send an e-mail request to Internet address:

   g...@prep.ai.mit.edu

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bacchus!husc6!ddl
From: d...@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <1186@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Feb-87 00:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1186
Posted: Sat Feb  7 00:40:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 04:27:09 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 45

In article <4...@yetti.UUCP>, o...@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> 	The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru
> 	this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind
> 	people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so
> 	that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program
> 	eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit
> 	it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. [Same thing
> 	happened with EMPIRE sources, but DECUS got a rap from the author,
> 	and withdrew the sources.]

	Good, this confirms what I thought.  (In one sense.)  And it is
still on the DECUS tape.  And it is sold.  And it is available to any
individual who wants it.  And it has (and had) no copyright notice.  How
can anyone claim that this is anything but public domain?  How can it
possibly be proprietary?  Why didn't AT&T prosecute the person who allowed
the source to leak?

> 	Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is
> 	crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking
> 	your company, yourself and the net..

	The legal "integrity" of the net???  That must be the responsibility
to protect AT&T's interests.  Can't AT&T do that by itself?

> 	There is, however, one important point: Unless a copyright violation
> 	is challenged, copyrights may be lost. Something for AT&T to think
> 	about - someone *sells* this bloody thing !!.

	Since there was no copyright, there is no copyright to be lost.  I
realize a work can be considered copyright without a notice, but only until
it is distributed.  AT&T relies on the proprietary nature of the code to
protect it.  They have not taken steps to protect that status.  And if
anyone has the means to take such steps, surely AT&T does.  Maybe the company
that sells yacc and lex knows something we don't.  Maybe they know that
yacc has become public domain.  Maybe all of unix has become public domain
and everyone is afraid to admit it :-)

> 	But than again, I said all of this before...

	But can someone who actually understands the *legal* (not moral)
aspects of this please, please comment?  The notion of publically available
information being proprietary is disconcerting.

					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!brl-adm!seismo!mcnc!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
From: tho...@gitpyr.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: Sat, 7-Feb-87 16:08:28 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.3056
Posted: Sat Feb  7 16:08:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 07:42:58 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP> <1186@husc6.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 38

In article <1...@husc6.UUCP>, d...@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
> 
> > 	Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is
> > 	crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking
> > 	your company, yourself and the net..
> 
> 	The legal "integrity" of the net???  That must be the responsibility
> to protect AT&T's interests.  Can't AT&T do that by itself?
Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to 
protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally 
challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease
to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like  hot potato.
> 
>They have not taken steps to protect that status.  And if
> anyone has the means to take such steps, surely AT&T does.  Maybe the company
> that sells yacc and lex knows something we don't.  Maybe they know that
> yacc has become public domain.  Maybe all of unix has become public domain
> and everyone is afraid to admit it :-)

On what basis to you state that they have not taken steps to protect it.
Just because someone mahages to rip off proprietary data does not mean
that the company now loses all rights to the proprietary data. In fact,
I believe that any entity which knowingly makes use of such data is
subject to potential legal and civil penalties. I seem to recall some
Japanese companies settling out of court with IBM for a significant
amount of money based on theft of proprietary information. 

Remember that proprietary information is most often lost through employee
theft. 

Finally, you cannot make a program public domain by placing in the public 
domain if you don't have a legal right to do so. 

-- 
Ken Thompson  Phone : (404) 894-7089
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!husc6!ddl
From: d...@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <1191@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 8-Feb-87 18:46:16 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1191
Posted: Sun Feb  8 18:46:16 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 05:04:54 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP> <1186@husc6.UUCP> <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 58

In article <3...@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, tho...@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Thompson) writes:
> Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to 
> protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally 
> challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease
> to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like  hot potato.

	Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not
the AT&T-compatibility of the net?  I suspect that if I decided to legally
challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then
nobody would even notice.  This is because I can't aford a good (set of)
lawyer(s).  Does might make right?  In other words, if the reason for not
doing X is that X is illegal, and even that the law will punish you for
doing X, then that is reasonable.  On the other hand, if the reason for
not doing X is that X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law"
is strongly biased in favor of might.  Note that I am *not* talking about
the morality of stealing software; this is a completely different issue.

> On what basis to you state that they have not taken steps to protect it.
> Just because someone mahages to rip off proprietary data does not mean
> that the company now loses all rights to the proprietary data. In fact,
> I believe that any entity which knowingly makes use of such data is
> subject to potential legal and civil penalties. I seem to recall some
> Japanese companies settling out of court with IBM for a significant
> amount of money based on theft of proprietary information. 

	Well, in fact, that's the question.  If the public knows your
proprietary information, and you didn't protect it in any other way,
then how can it still be proprietary?  Proprietary implies secret.
The key words in your IBM example are "settling out of court."  Like AT&T,
IBM has the power to intimidate.  No matter how legally right you are,
you probably can't aford to go to court against IBM or AT&T (or Apple...).
This kind of protection works only for large comapnies; not for individuals.

> Remember that proprietary information is most often lost through employee
> theft. 

	Yes, that's what I always thought.  I also thought that such employees
were the ones liable for the theft.  (For that matter, they should be the
only ones capable of the theft since the information was supposedly
proprieatry.)

	Consider the problem you create by claiming that public information
can be proprietary.  In order to verify the status of any work you must
ask a potentially unlimitted number of authors if it really belongs to them.
Beyond the unreasonable resources that it would take to acomplish this, you
must "trust" all the responses you get since you are not allowed to "see"
the proprietary material of those authors.  Public domain status would
effectively vanish because any entity that made proprietary changes to
public code could easilly tell you that the code belonged to it.
	Now, even if you insist that all of this is reasonable, about
the best you could ask for the research phase is a public discussion in
which a potential author should come forward and claim rights to "his"
work.  We have been having just such a discussion and AT&T hasn't claimed
yacc.  Why are so many people outside of AT&T so anxious to do so for it?


					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbatt!gatech!gitpyr!thomps
From: tho...@gitpyr.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <3066@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>
Date: Mon, 9-Feb-87 20:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: gitpyr.3066
Posted: Mon Feb  9 20:40:28 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 18:37:42 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP> <1186@husc6.UUCP> <1191@husc6.UUCP>
Organization: Georgia Institute of Technology
Lines: 44
Summary: Don't kill the net on principle

In article <1...@husc6.UUCP>, d...@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
> In article <3...@gitpyr.gatech.EDU>, tho...@gitpyr.gatech.EDU (Ken Thompson) writes:
> > Those of us who would like to see the net continue to exist need to 
> > protect the legal integrity of the net. If AT&T decided to legally 
> > challenge a number of major backbone sites the net might quickly cease
> > to exist. Most would probably simply drop the net like  hot potato.
> 
> 	Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not
> the AT&T-compatibility of the net?  I suspect that if I decided to legally
> challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then
> nobody would even notice.  This is because I can't aford a good (set of)
> lawyer(s).  Does might make right?  In other words, if the reason for not
> doing X is that X is illegal, and even that the law will punish you for
> doing X, then that is reasonable.  On the other hand, if the reason for
> not doing X is that X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law"
> is strongly biased in favor of might.  Note that I am *not* talking about
> the morality of stealing software; this is a completely different issue.
> 

I personally do not want to endanger the net over a questionable issue.
I don't know who is right and who is wrong in this case legally.
My concern is that I would rather see the code assumed to be proprietary
and kept off the net until proven otherwise because I still feel the
net is vuknerable to lawsuits and I don't want it to disappear over
what appears to be a questionable case anyway judging by the 
discussion. I have no desire to either protect or harm AT&T. I am more
concerned about protecting the net. Georgia Tech is a backbone site and
am sure if threatened with a major lawsuit over something to do with
the net they would drop it like a hot potato. It would have nothing
to do with intimidation. It would simply be a case that the powers that
be (In this case probably the Ga, University System Board of regents)
wouldn't think the net worth fighting a major lawsuit for regardless
of right or wrong. You may be correct that no one would take you
seriously if you threatened to sue because unfortunately lawsuits take
a lot of money and your ability to sustain a suit would probably be 
doubted.


and no
-- 
Ken Thompson (No not that Ken Thompson) 
Georgia Tech Research Institute
Georgia Insitute of Technology, Atlanta Georgia, 30332
...!{akgua,allegra,amd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo,ut-ngp}!gatech!gitpyr!thomps

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bu-cs!tower
From: to...@bu-cs.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain Yacc (Important)
Message-ID: <4145@bu-cs.BU.EDU>
Date: Thu, 12-Feb-87 11:58:40 EST
Article-I.D.: bu-cs.4145
Posted: Thu Feb 12 11:58:40 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 06:23:28 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <1170@husc6.UUCP> <867@epimass.UUCP> <1179@husc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: to...@prep.ai.mit.edu
Distribution: world
Organization: Distributed Systems Group, Boston University, 111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA  02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780
Lines: 38
Summary: bison availability and copyright
Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA  02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739

Keywords: gnu fsf software freedom

In article <1...@husc6.UUCP> d...@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
 > In article <8...@epimass.UUCP>, jb...@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes:
 > > ...	  If you really
 > > want a pd yacc, "bison" is available from the Gnu project, and you
 > > won't be vulnerable to a suit.
   
Information on obtaining bison and other GNU software is available from:
Internet:	g...@prep.ai.mit.edu
UUCP:		..!mit-eddie!mit-prep!gnu

 > 	Bison is unfortunately not public domain but includes the rather
 > complicated copyright of the Free Software Foundation.   ...

The copyright is simple, it's the license that a few find complicated.
One simply has to provide source code with any distribution of
software based on GNU software.  Things only get complicated when one
wishes to not distribute source.  I find the requirement to distribute
source fortunate, the public will ALWAYS have access to the software.

 > The properties
 > of this copyright are still being analyzed.

Specifically, by whom??    ;-}

 ---------------------------------------------------------------------

Fair Notices: 1) I help the Free Software Foundation.
	      2) The above is my own statement.



-- 
Len Tower, Distributed Systems Group, Boston University,
     111 Cummington Street, Boston, MA  02215, USA +1 (617) 353-2780
Home: 36 Porter Street, Somerville, MA  02143, USA +1 (617) 623-7739
UUCP: {}!harvard!bu-cs!tower		INTERNET:   to...@bu-cs.bu.edu

			        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 v IBM.

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

Electronic mail:			       WorldWideWeb:
   tech-insider@outlook.com			  http://tech-insider.org/