Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!zephyr.ens.tek.com!uw-beaver!fluke!kurt
From: kurt@tc.fluke.COM (Kurt Guntheroth)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: Latest code-copying decision
Message-ID: <1990Sep17.162854.3983@tc.fluke.COM>
Date: 17 Sep 90 16:28:54 GMT
References: <MWM.90Sep12104910@raven.pa.dec.com> <9504@skinner.nprdc.arpa> <MWM.90Sep12145816@raven.pa.dec.com>
Distribution: na
Organization: John Fluke Mfg. Co., Inc., Everett, WA
Lines: 18


    ...I can see
    two situations that would invole violations of the existing copyright
    laws:

    1) The microcode only existed on one machine, and was run on the
    others by crossloading or shared memory.

    2) The mp implementation is non-symmetric, and only the master ran the
    microcode in the first place.

    Either case involves creating new copies of the microcode, which is
    clearly a violation of the existing copyright laws (though may be
    considered to be fair use).

Exactly.  In case (1) If the original software made copies of itself, it
seems to imply a license to make those copies.  If case (2) in fact involves
unique code, then that would be different.