Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/3/84; site teddy.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!think!harvard!talcott!panda!teddy!jwg
From: jwg@teddy.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Re: lex and yacc in the public domain (responses)
Message-ID: <2437@teddy.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-Apr-86 13:07:39 EST
Article-I.D.: teddy.2437
Posted: Mon Apr  7 13:07:39 1986
Date-Received: Thu, 10-Apr-86 00:27:17 EST
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <518@looking.UUCP>
Reply-To: jwg@teddy.UUCP (Jim Galbiati)
Organization: GenRad, Inc., Concord, Mass.
Lines: 39
Xref: watmath net.unix:7578 net.lang:2327 net.legal:3234

In article <518@looking.UUCP> brad@looking.UUCP (Brad Templeton) writes:
>>>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, ...
>>>
>>>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

>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.
>-- Brad Templeton


I am being quoted out of context here!!  The question was, could he *legally*
redistribute the code.  I replied that software can be protected in two
ways: by copyright and by trade secret.  To achieve copyright protection, 
the software must contain a copyright notice.  To maintain trade secret status,
the owner of the trade secret must take steps to protect it's secrecy.
The particular software involved appears to fail both tests, since
	1) it contains no copyright notice.
	2) The original poster was able to read the source for the program
	   without even being aware of whether the software was proprietary 
	   or not.  That's not very secret.

Discussion of the morality of redistributing unprotected software
should be sent to net.philosophy or net.religion.
-- 
Jim Galbiati,  GenRad Inc, Mail Stop 6, 300 Baker Ave, Concord, Mass.  01742
{decvax,linus,wjh12,mit-eddie,cbosgd,masscomp}!genrad!panda!jwg
(617) 369-4400 x2459