Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!rochester!ritcv!cci632!ccird2!rb
From: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Are any parts of UNIX in public domain?
Message-ID: <755@ccird2.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 11-Apr-86 13:50:39 EST
Article-I.D.: ccird2.755
Posted: Fri Apr 11 13:50:39 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 13-Apr-86 08:43:02 EST
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <518@looking.UUCP> <2437@teddy.UUCP>
Reply-To: rb@ccird2.UUCP (Rex Ballard)
Organization: CCI Telephony Systems Group,  Roch, NY
Lines: 63
Xref: linus net.unix:6984 net.lang:2091 net.legal:2968
Summary: It's hard to tell which is which.

Berkely includes in it's distributions, certain pieces of public
domain software.  Much of it contributions from net.sources.
On the other hand, they have a liscence agreement that includes
trade secrecy as part of the agreement.

In the case of GNUemacs, there is a long "copyright but public
domain" notice.  In this case, the author has proof that he
owns the property, but he is explicitly putting it in public
domain.  In fact, the author explicitly requests that this
"public domain notice" not be removed as a condition of publication.
He has the right to do this because he owns the copyright.

As to sources for Lex and Yacc, there is a serious question.  Did
Steven Johnson (the author) intend that this be a public domain
program, did he not copyright it because the protections on registered
copyrighted software were not in place yet (YACC was written before
the revised copyright act of 1979 was in effect), or were other
factors (Anti-trust, Hacker's ethic,...) preventing Bell labs from
even placing copyright notices on the documentation.

Perhaps AT&T believed that "trade secrets" was the better way to
protect themselves under the circumstances.  The formula for
Coca-Cola is a well protected trade secret, but others may discover
the secret, and unless they have been covered by a non-disclosure
agreement, they can use the formula.  In fact, this has happened
several times, and Coke has had to change the formula so that their
competitor can't say "it tastes just like Coke".

If Cornell had a non-disclosure agreement and let a student or
faculty member who had not signed a similar agreement see the source,
Cornel would have been in violation of their AT&T contract.  If
a "hacker" broke into Cornel's computer and "ftp'd" the source
to his PC, the only protection would be a copyright notice.

Previous postings to net.legal indicate that under the current law,
if they did not put copyright notices on the works in question,
those works are not covered by copyright laws.

Does AT&T release any of these "public domain programs" under the
UNIX liscence?  If so, AT&T may have a copyright on their specific
collection of programs, but not on the programs themselves.

I can understand the reluctance of a software company to register
their copyrights, but they should at least put notices on each
module so that users will know which is which.  It is illegal to
remove a copyright notice, and it's also illegal to affix one to
a "public domain" (work published without copyright notice) work.

This may sound peculiar to people who are dealing with "whole entities",
but it is common practice among people in the entertainment industry
to put copyright notices on each piece of the work.  For example,
scenic designers put notices on each drawing from the rendering, to
the "working drawings" given to individual craftsmen for implementation.
Software people have been very lax about affixing any claims to the
software.  In some cases, there is not even an author's name affixed
to the product.

I frequently put copyright notices in sources that I e-mail to
others, requesting only that my name be included in the credits
for that software or any derivative products.  The main reason
for this is that I might want to use the same code in another
product, and I don't want Tektronics or somebody suing me for
"violating their copyright".