Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ncoast.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!mhuxl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!cwruecmp!atvax!ncoast!bsa
From: bsa@ncoast.UUCP (The WITNESS)
Newsgroups: net.bugs.uucp,net.wanted,net.bugs.v7
Subject: Re: Want v7 uucp bug fixes (Source license??)
Message-ID: <304@ncoast.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 5-Sep-84 12:32:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: ncoast.304
Posted: Wed Sep  5 12:32:08 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 13-Sep-84 19:12:22 EDT
References: <836@ihuxx.UUCP> <506@wjh12.UUCP> <139@dmsd.UUCP>
Organization: North Coast XENIX, Cleveland
Lines: 30

[gollum :-)]

> From: bass@dmsd.UUCP

> 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.

Strikes me that some of the stuff regarding SOURCES on here has already broken
the equivalent source-code rules (EQUIVALENT, not EXISTING; damned if I know
what AT&T's got in its head (?) (:-) re: legalities, I'm just trying to draw a
parallel).

Okay, we provide 'diff' listings for sources.  How about a (non-AT&T) patch
program, and a protocol for it which can be posted on the net a` la uuencode?
You'd probably have to repost uuencode/uudecode to use it, as we, at least, do
not have it (our news link does not like to pass along sources, the hack occurs
'long about at cwruecmp (listening, Case? :-)).  If LDOS can do it, SURELY a
Unix system can!

--bsa