Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site looking.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!looking!brad
From: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Re: lex and yacc in the public domain (responses)
Message-ID: <518@looking.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Apr-86 00:18:44 EST
Article-I.D.: looking.518
Posted: Mon Apr  7 00:18:44 1986
Date-Received: Wed, 9-Apr-86 08:14:53 EST
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU>
Reply-To: brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton)
Organization: Looking Glass Software Ltd. Waterloo, Ontario
Lines: 72
Xref: watmath net.unix:7565 net.lang:2318 net.legal:3226
Summary: 

In article <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cornell.edu.arpa writes:
>
>A couple weeks ago I asked whether lex and yacc, as distributed by Berkeley,
>were protected (they had no explicit copyright notices). The interesting
>discussion I received went as follows (my summary is at the bottom):
>
>***********************************************************************
>
>>If, however, you found them on your local university computer system, 
>>and they were not protected, and nobody ever told you
>>not to look/copy/redistribute them, then it seems to me that they
>>are fair game for redistribution.
>>
>>The law protecting trade secrets and proprietary information
>>requires the owner to take strong measures to protect this information.
>>Once it slips out into public knowledge, it is no longer protected.
>>
>>To my mind, lots of UNIX code has slipped out, since it is readable
>>by everyone on lots of university and business computer systems.
>>Probably the universities signed non-disclosure agreements
>>when they got the source, but AT&T has been a bit negligent in enforcement.
>>-- 
>>	Jim Galbiati,  GenRad Inc,  Production Test Division
>>	Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742
>>	{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!jwg
>>	(617) 369-4400 x2459
>>
>
>SO:
>
>    1) it can't be copyrighted because it has no explicit notice,
>    2) it may be copyrighted anyhow,
>    3) it is protected by an AT&T trade secret agreement,
>    4) it is not a trade secret, since no effort was made to maintain its 
>       secrecy.
>
>I trust I've gotten the gist of it right? :-)  (Apologies in advance!)
>
>The bottom line for me is that my access is courtesy of Cornell, and
>it sounds like Cornell must have signed a trade secret agreement. If it
>were just me I might take the chance, but I surely don't want to cause
>waves for Cornell - AT&T is a benefactor!
>
>So I'm going to hunt for true public domain copies. (net.lang people: help?)
>
>(Please choose one group to send followups to, depending on what you have
> to say.)
>
>thanks to all - 
>
>garry wiegand        garry%cadif-oak@cu-arpa.cs.cornell.edu

I am amazed.  You *know* that these things are somebody else's property.
You *know* that they don't want you to take them.  Yet people can quibble
over whether there were proper copyright notices or if trade secrets were
properly enforced.

They say that children go through several levels of moral development.
If you ask them why they shouldn't steal.

Very young children say, "because mommy will punish me."
Older children say, "because the law will punish me."
Later it's "because it's against the law, and we should follow the law."

Finally, it's "because stealing hurts the victim."

How many members of the net are still at the child's level.
If you see somebody's money on the ground, do you take it if you can get
away with it?  If it isn't tagged but you know who it belongs to, do you
take it?
-- 
Brad Templeton, Looking Glass Software Ltd. - Waterloo, Ontario 519/884-7473