Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!ucla-cs!sdcrdcf!hplabs!hp-sdd!ucsdhub!sdcsvax!sdcc6!sdcc18!ee161aba
From: ee161aba@sdcc18.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: MINIX extensions
Message-ID: <614@sdcc18.ucsd.EDU>
Date: Wed, 28-Jan-87 23:48:31 EST
Article-I.D.: sdcc18.614
Posted: Wed Jan 28 23:48:31 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 30-Jan-87 04:56:36 EST
References: <252@hqda-ai.UUCP> <1953@ncoast.UUCP> <3166@rsch.WISC.EDU>
Reply-To: ee161aba@sdcc18.ucsd.edu.UUCP (David L. Smith)
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 56

In article <3166@rsch.WISC.EDU> mcvoy@rsch.WISC.EDU (Lawrence W. McVoy) writes:
(whilst picking on allbery@ncoast (Brandon Allbery)
>Now, remember that AT&T code is not public domain (see below).  Things like 
>the protocol that is used in UUCP are proprietary, not public domain.  Any
>port of UUCP that shows up in public domain is _extremely_ suspect.  I
>know of one port where the author claims to have done it all by looking 
>at logfiles.   You might ask him how long it took (lauren@vortex.uucp).
>AT&T can always decide to make an example to slow down theft.
You're right.  UUCP doesn't work either!  I say it's time to junk the silly
thing and build something that is
a) simple and reliable
b) public-domain so we poor fools without source licences can make it work

UUCP is really a pretty simple program when you get down to what it is
actually used for, moving files out of one directory into another on another
machine.  I'm going to get started on some hacks that will allow kermit to
go in and zip files back and forth out of directories that are set up uucp
style for compatibility.  
>
>>Anyway, if AT&T, as stuffy as they are, will allow you to post diffs to Sys5
>>utilities, Prentice-Hall and Mr. Tanenbaum should be at least as lenient,
>			      ^^^  That's Dr. Tanenbaum.  
>>given the nature of MINIX.
>
>Geez.  You really live with your head in the clouds.  Post diffs?  Chuckle.
>
>A) The diffs would be so huge, you might as well post the entire program.
>
>B) This is a cut-and-dried case of license violation.  You would deserve
>   to lose it.
>
>Remember, AT&T is the business to make $money$.  Not to support your
>toys.  Geez.  
Spoilsport!  You're mixing your subjects here.  Which are you talking about,
MINIX license violations or AT&T license violations?  If you're talking about
AT&T, what does that have to do with anything here?   If someone takes the
UUCP code and modifies it to run under Minix, we've got a copyright violation,
not a license violation.  

No, AT&T is not in business to support my toys.  However, AT&T does not own
Minix, nor does it have any right to tell me what I can do with my toys
provided I don't step on AT&T's toes.  I think Dr. Tanenbaum is the person
to refer these kinds of questions to.  In the meantime, I'll wait on writing
vaporware until I get to *see* Minix in action.

If you're so upset by a little enthusiasm, go soak your head and stop reading
this newsgroup.  The blue sky people here have got work to do.
>-- 
>Larry McVoy 	        mcvoy@rsch.wisc.edu, 
>      		        {seismo, topaz, harvard, ihnp4, etc}!uwvax!mcvoy
>"They're coming soon!  Quad-stated guru-gates!"
			Cheers,
			David L. Smith
	Send here -->	{ucbvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!man!sdeggo!dave
			{ucbvax, ihnp4}!sdcsvax!sdcc18!ee161aba
			"Consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds"