Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!harvard!caip!lll-crg!lll-lcc!pyramid!gould9!joel
From: joel@gould9.UUCP (Joel West)
Newsgroups: net.unix,net.lang,net.legal
Subject: Re: Are any parts of UNIX in public domain?
Message-ID: <529@gould9.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 7-May-86 09:42:26 EDT
Article-I.D.: gould9.529
Posted: Wed May  7 09:42:26 1986
Date-Received: Fri, 9-May-86 10:23:42 EDT
References: <481@batcomputer.TN.CORNELL.EDU> <518@looking.UUCP> <2437@teddy.UUCP> <393@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>
Organization: CACI, Inc. -- La Jolla, Calif.
Lines: 25
Xref: watmath net.unix:7800 net.lang:2426 net.legal:3396
Summary: licensing vs. sale

In article <393@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU>, henry@mit-trillian.MIT.EDU (Henry C. Mensch) writes:
> 	Software is *not* printed material <although it is often
> represented as a list of instructions on paper, it is *not* printed
> material...
to say software that has been distributed to 100's of sites is
unpublished is questionable at best.  the copyright law was amended
in 1980 to specifically include software.

>  Unix(tm) is not issued for public sale; AT&T sells
> *licenses* to use the software -- they do not sell the software!

The claim that software is not sold -- only licensed -- is one that
someday soon will be taken apart by a court or legislative body.
It's a nice loophole that software lawyers (including our own) have
perpetuated for a long time, but it violates the most fundmental 
precepts of contract law.  That's not to say that it won't be
replaced by something that addresses the copying, etc. issues.

When I go to B. Dalton, I don't buy a license to a book.  I buy a book.
I can't stick in the xerox machine and plagarize it, but I do OWN it.
-- 
	Joel West	 	(619) 457-9681
	CACI, Inc. Federal, 3344 N. Torrey Pines Ct., La Jolla, CA  92037
	{cbosgd, ihnp4, sdcsvax, ucla-cs} !gould9!joel
	joel%gould9.uucp@NOSC.ARPA