Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site mit-trillian.MIT.EDU
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!mit-trillian!henry
From: henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry C. Mensch)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Re: Are any parts of UNIX in public domain?
Message-ID: <393@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Date: Fri, 2-May-86 17:30:09 EDT
Article-I.D.: mit-tril.393
Posted: Fri May  2 17:30:09 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 4-May-86 07:00:41 EDT
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <518@looking.UUCP> <2437@teddy.UUCP> <142@myab.UUCP> <197@gilbbs.UUCP> <389@ccird1.UUCP>
Reply-To: henry@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Henry C. Mensch)
Organization: The People's Republic of Cambridge
Lines: 61
Xref: watmath net.unix:7768 net.lang:2419 net.legal:3377

>>> >/*	Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T	*/
>>> >/*	  All Rights Reserved  	*/
>
>Isn't this all they need to protect themselves?
>An even better approach would be:
>	static char *copyright="Copyright 1984 AT&T, All Rights Reserved";
>In the top line of the program, Which would protect the binary as well.

	You are correct here -- a copyright notice must reside in
memory while the program is executing.  

>>> >/*	THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T	*/
>
>What purpose does this serve?  Does this give them protections
>under some sort of "Trade Secrets Act"?  Does this prevent me from
>reading the source, then passing it on to someone else, without making
>a copy?
>

	Your site purchases a license which permits or denies access
to source code for the various Unix(tm) utilities.  If they don't put
these notifications in the text of the source code, then you indeed
may pass them from one to another (perhaps illegally).  Your source
license usually prohibits disclosure to unauthorized third parties
without the licensor's permission.

>>> >/*	The copyright notice above does not evidence any   	*/
>>> >/*	actual or intended publication of such source code.	*/
>
>The fact that many people have copies means they have "published" the
>code.  I suppose this simply prevents one customer from buying it, then
>selling or trading it to someone else (who might need a lot of hand holding).
>Under the copyright laws the first costumer is allowed to do this, so long as
>they don't keep any copies for themselves.
>

	From *The American Heritage Dictionary: 2nd College Edition*:

	publish: --tr 1. To prepare and issue (printed material) for
public distribution or sale.  2.  To bring to the public attention;
announce.  --intr.  1. To issue a publication.  2.  To be the author of
a published work or works [ME publishen < OFr. publier < LLat.
publicare, to make public -- see PUBLICATION]

	Software is *not* printed material <although it is often
represented as a list of instructions on paper, it is *not* printed
material...>  Unix(tm) is not issued for public sale; AT&T sells
*licenses* to use the software -- they do not sell the software!
Therefore, they have not *published* the software -- they have simply
permitted (for a fee) outsiders to use their software.  

	The fact that many people have copies means that many people
happen to posess licenses to the source as well as the binary.  

	So what's so bloody difficult to understand here?
.

-- 
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Henry Mensch     |    Technical Writer     | MIT/Project Athena
henry@athena.mit.edu              ..!mit-eddie!mit-athena!henry