Path: utzoo!mnetor!tmsoft!torsqnt!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!wuarchive!sdd.hp.com!think.com!paperboy!meissner From: meissner@osf.org (Michael Meissner) Newsgroups: comp.unix.internals Subject: Re: Source for Unix??? Message-ID: Date: 17 Feb 91 21:54:13 GMT References: <1991Feb9.202455.29275@unicorn.cc.wwu.edu> <5855@auspex.auspex.com> <1991Feb11.221134.10074@robobar.co.uk> <1991Feb13.185300.28927@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> Sender: news@OSF.ORG Organization: Open Software Foundation Lines: 22 In-reply-to: cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu's message of 13 Feb 91 18:53:00 GMT In article <1991Feb13.185300.28927@cunixf.cc.columbia.edu> cy5@cunixa.cc.columbia.edu (Conway Yee) writes: | >They don't. And yes, they do know what V6 is. I tried to get a local | >university library to get a copy of Lions, he referred us to AT&T who | >had bought it, and they said (paraphrased): | | I can't believe that a library would allow someone to purchase their only | copy of a reference book. Isn't there a code of ethics which prevents | something like this? Surely there is a library out there with a copy. | Would the Library of Congress in Washington DC have copies? If they [Library of Congress] do, they would be bound legally by the same constraints anybody else is. Mainly, because the book contained the source code to V6 [a trade secret held by AT&T], you were required to have a valid V6 license to obtain the book. The reasoning is the same as for other restricted works, such as atomic bomb plans. -- Michael Meissner email: meissner@osf.org phone: 617-621-8861 Open Software Foundation, 11 Cambridge Center, Cambridge, MA, 02142 Considering the flames and intolerance, shouldn't USENET be spelled ABUSENET?