gad dyslexia sucks... the sentence was supposed to say: This is true for all UNIX implementations, including the UNIX-like/work alikes from Idris, Coherent, Sol, and Linux ᐧ
On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:38 AM Clem Cole <[email protected]> wrote: > below... > > On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Al Kossow <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On 9/5/18 4:24 AM, Al Kossow wrote: >> > >> >> > So the newer UNIXes are in the clear. I doubt anyone actually cares >> about >> > version 0 either, but technically it's still under copyright. >> >> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html >> >> I don't think that is true since it predates the 1976 removal of the >> requirement >> for computer programs having to be registered with the Copyright office, >> and >> we know Unix didn't even have WE copyrights on the code until much later. >> >> Anything he created as replacements are, though. >> >> Hopefully, those are appropriately licensed. > > > Anything before and including V7 is covered by the Ancient UNIX license. > At one time you needed to get you own and a number fo us have them, but at > one point Novell (the eventual legal owner of the IP and the copyrights) > removed that restriction and the original code is availble (although it > should be attributed). I probably can dig up all this from email et > al.. If Warren does not have a section "Front and Center" on TUHS web site, > I'll work with him. The PWB world (PWB 1.0- SRV4) was ittle different BTW. > PWB 1.0 and 2.0 kernals were based on V6 and V7 and AT&T (before Novell) > has agreed that they were covered under the original Ancient license. > PWB 3.0 aka System III and later were released as part of the IBM/Linux law > suite when it was discovered that Novell owned the IP rights. > > One more thing, which is off topic for simh, which I'll add before some > gets all worked up (and again, take it off list), the intellectual property > (IP) and the code itself are different. AT&T owned the IP, which was > described in the code, which had a copyright. They published *the IP in > the open literature*. In the AT&T vs. UCB/BSDi cash the courts were > clear -- AT&T owned the IP but ... they could not claim trade secret on it > because they published it (the case was a trade secret case not a copyright > case). The different code bases (the implementations) are covered by the > licenses associated with their copyrights, but are under the rules of IP > ownership. This is true for all UNIX implementations, including the > UNIX-like/work alikes from Idris, Coherent, Sol, UNIX. Thus the provenance > of the code itself is only interesting as to which copyrights it covered. > The courts were clear: the UNIX IP (the core ideas) are 100% 'free' > (open/libre) since AT&T published it opennling starting in the early 1970s. > > I have a fairly long treastise on much of this in a paper I published last > fall at History of Unix symposium - Paris, France, October 19th 2017 > http://technique-societe.cnam.fr/colloque-international-unix-en-france-et-aux-etats-unis-innovation-diffusion-et-appropriation--945215.kjsp > [note the web site is in french. my paper is not, althought some of them > are]. Send me email off line if you want a copy of the PDF. > > Been there, lived it, and have the tee shirts to prove it - at least ones > by wife has not thrown out as too ratty ;-) > Clem > > ᐧ >
_______________________________________________ Simh mailing list [email protected] http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/mailman/listinfo/simh
