Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mit-eddie.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!rms@mit-prep
From: rms@mit-prep
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Distribution of dbx
Message-ID: <4437@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 12-Jun-85 02:50:41 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-eddi.4437
Posted: Wed Jun 12 02:50:41 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Jun-85 02:25:42 EDT
Sender: dae...@mit-eddi.UUCP
Organization: MIT, Cambridge, MA
Lines: 10

From: Richard M. Stallman < rms@mit-prep>
Karels@berkeley says that there is no restriction on distribution
of anything in 4.2 except that some parts of it are subject to
AT&T licensing because they contain AT&T code.

Berkeley does not say anything about which parts those are.
But Mark Linton, author of dbx, says that there is nothing in
dbx that is copied from AT&T code.  It follows that you can
give the source of dbx to anyone, even though Berkeley won't
officially promise this is true.

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Shasta.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!decwrl!Glacier!
Shasta!linton
From: lin...@Shasta.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: Re: Distribution of dbx
Message-ID: <6238@Shasta.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 17-Jun-85 00:04:49 EDT
Article-I.D.: Shasta.6238
Posted: Mon Jun 17 00:04:49 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 19-Jun-85 01:46:33 EDT
References: <4437@mit-eddie.UUCP>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 29

> From: Richard M. Stallman < rms@mit-prep>
> Karels@berkeley says that there is no restriction on distribution
> of anything in 4.2 except that some parts of it are subject to
> AT&T licensing because they contain AT&T code.
> 
> Berkeley does not say anything about which parts those are.
> But Mark Linton, author of dbx, says that there is nothing in
> dbx that is copied from AT&T code.  It follows that you can
> give the source of dbx to anyone, even though Berkeley won't
> officially promise this is true.

I did NOT say that.  In fact, what I told Stallman a while back was that
dbx does contain a small amount of code (less than 5%) that was
derived from adb (e.g., instruction disassembling).  "Derived" means
the code was taken from adb and modified to fit my coding style.

As far as I am concerned, dbx is dependent on the Berkeley license and
should not be distributed to anyone other than Berkeley licensees.
Of course, I am not a lawyer (neither are Karels or Stallman to my knowledge)
so you shouldn't take my opinion seriously if you worry about such things.
However, you can be assured that I do not claim that "there is nothing
that is copied from AT&T code" in dbx.  I don't even know the legal definition
of "copying" with respect to software, and anyway my understanding is
that AT&T code is covered by licensing, not copyrights.

If other people want to claim that dbx is in the public domain, that
is their business, but please do not attach my name to such statements.

	Mark