Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Fortune) 6/7/84; site dmsd.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hpda!dmsd!bass
From: bass@dmsd.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.bugs.uucp,net.wanted,net.bugs.v7
Subject: Re: Want v7 uucp bug fixes (Source license??)
Message-ID: <139@dmsd.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 3-Sep-84 07:16:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: dmsd.139
Posted: Mon Sep  3 07:16:00 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 05:35:42 EDT
References: <836@ihuxx.UUCP> <506@wjh12.UUCP>
Lines: 19

My understanding of the AT&T stand on binary licenses is that EVERY provider
of binaries to a single system must pay the proper license fee... IE:

	Vendor 1 provides UNIX kernel and basic set of utilities pays first
	royalty fee.

	Vendor 2 provides C, F77, assembler, ld, and vi pays second fee.

	Vendor 3 provides UUCP pays third fee.

	A source site which provides binaries without a binary sublicense
agreement and payment of fees is in violation of their license.

Please correct me if I'm wrong ... this is the example I used at a USENIX
meeting several years back in questions to a WeCo speaker ... their statement
of multiple fees was clear ... of course things do change for the better
every once and a while ...

John Bass