Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:7198 unix-pc.general:3490
Path: utzoo!utgpu!watmath!uunet!ethos!mcdchg!chinet!dsueme
From: dsueme@chinet.chi.il.us (dave sueme)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,unix-pc.general
Subject: Re: UNIXPC: 3.5.1.4 worth my time?
Message-ID: <9172@chinet.chi.il.us>
Date: 5 Aug 89 04:56:19 GMT
References: <1989Jul31.153826.21079@ivucsb.sba.ca.us> <1584@mtunb.ATT.COM> <758@argon.UUCP>
Reply-To: dsueme@chinet.chi.il.us (dave sueme)
Followup-To: comp.sys.att
Organization: Chinet - Public Access Unix
Lines: 17

>Hypothetical question:  Suppose someone from the "Institute for
>Unix-PC Research" used legally licensed 3B1 OS source, purchased from
>AT&T, to hack up the general disk driver...                          
>                   How illegal would it be to give away the BINARY of
>the new driver?  What about the general case of binary bugfix patches?
 
Depends entirely on the terms of the license granted by AT&T and what
that license has to say about "derivative works".  AT&T can grant or
reserve any of the rights that they have (mostly all of the rights) and
if they grant the right to distribute [possibly under given terms, e.g.
no sales] then such distribution is as legal as drinking milk.  If
such right is not granted then copyright infringement is illegal
enough: big fine (50,000 ? - I disremember), possible prison, CIVIL
DAMAGES... uugh!

David M. Sueme
Attorney (Illinois)