Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10 UW 5/3/83; site uw-beaver
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!cbosgd!ihnp4!houxm!houxz!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!info-mac
From: info-mac@uw-beaver (info-mac)
Newsgroups: fa.info-mac
Subject: Unix sources -- hangman --> licensed Unix source code?
Message-ID: <1043@uw-beaver>
Date: Tue, 3-Jul-84 10:43:29 EDT
Article-I.D.: uw-beave.1043
Posted: Tue Jul  3 10:43:29 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 4-Jul-84 23:43:34 EDT
Sender: daemon@uw-beave
Organization: U of Washington Computer Science
Lines: 21

From: Jerry E. Pournelle <POURNE@MIT-MC>
Do you not go too far in your generalization?  I would imagine
that just how much of what can be restricted how depends on what
law one relies on for protection.  After teh Franklin/APple case
it's likely that courts will hold that object code as well as
sources are protected by copyright; but copyright has got some
severe restrictions and limits built right into the law.
	License law can't be applied to innocent use by third
parties.  Posession of copyrighted materials can be ambiguous.
The whole matter is unsettled.  Agreed, one is best off being
careful; but "contains materials which were part of licensed
software" may be a bit broad.  Just what is subject to copyright
in computer code?  We haven't really settled that in literary
law, although we do have some cases; in softare and computer
code it is considerably more ambiguous.  How many lines must be
identical?  If not identical, but accomplish the same thing, how
many points of similarity constitute infringement?  (IE using
the same code but putting results in different registers and
different memory locations would probably be an infringement...)
	OH Well.  It will  make a great column think piece.