Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rpi!think.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!wuarchive!uunet!cbmvax!andy
From: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.programmer
Subject: Re:  Information on Amiga Technical Reference Seri
Message-ID: <22472@cbmvax.commodore.com>
Date: 14 Jun 91 20:36:09 GMT
References: <3036@public.BTR.COM> <22380@cbmvax.commodore.com> <3068@public.BTR.COM>
Reply-To: andy@cbmvax.commodore.com (Andy Finkel)
Organization: Commodore, West Chester, PA
Lines: 40

In article <3068@public.BTR.COM> valentin@public.BTR.COM (Valentin Pepelea) writes:
>You are confusing the protections accorded by law to copyright holders and
>the special licensing agreement that AT&T requires. AT&T, prints at the top

No, I am not confusing anything.  I simply note that AT&T apparently
feels that a standard copyright may not meet their needs or goals.

>of each source code file "This is unpublished source code of AT&T." And instead
>of depending on the copyright law to protect themselves, they require in their
>licensing agreements stiff secrecy from their clients. But then, you already
>knew that.
>
>To my knowledge, only AT&T refuses to publish (copyright) their software.

You are confusing publishing software and publishing source.
Software can be copyright without publishing source.

>Perhaps they are afraid of having their code freely distributed 50 years from
>now. Perhaps they are forced to keep the source code secret by the DoD.

BTW, the Lynx fee for the entire OS wasn't small, last time I checked.

>decent fee. ($100?) That constitutes publication. You will then be granted
>the protection of the law.

You can have copyright protection by publishing a binary, Valentin.
And we do.

>
>Valentin

		andy
-- 
andy finkel		{uunet|rutgers|amiga}!cbmvax!andy
Commodore-Amiga, Inc.

 "2.0 is not the answer.  2.0 is the question.  Yes is the answer."

Any expressed opinions are mine; but feel free to share.
I disclaim all responsibilities, all shapes, all sizes, all colors.