Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!usc!sdd.hp.com!decwrl!hayes.fai.alaska.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: hkhenson@cup.portal.com
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: Len Rose Indictment
Message-ID: <10829@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 13 Aug 90 07:00:04 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 23
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 10, Issue 568, Message 2 of 10


One aspect of the Len Rose case which has been discussed on the Well
is the concept of "fair use" of copyrighted material.  I know that ATT
has put "This is copyrighted, but we don't intend to ever publish it"
notices on Unix source code (and a lot of other chunks of binary unix
copies too.)  However, with thousands of copies of it sold, and at
least that many in the hands of CS majors, a jury might well rule that
ATT had effectively published the code.  

If so, then what Len had on his machine is very likely to fall under
the "fair use" provisions of the copyright law.  As is clear from the
affidavit supporting the warrant under which Len's computers and
reference materials were taken, ATT is the motivating force in the Len
Rose case, just as Bell South was in the Neidorf case.  It seems
possible that this case might blow up in their faces even worse than
the Neidorf case did, making Unix source code freely available as
reference material (which might not be that bad for ATT).  Another
thing, I have been a faithful ATT LD customer since the breakup, but
their role in this case is making me reconsider.  


Keith Henson
hkhenson@cup.portal.com