Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!bacchus!husc6!ddl
From: ddl@husc6.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <1186@husc6.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 7-Feb-87 00:40:28 EST
Article-I.D.: husc6.1186
Posted: Sat Feb  7 00:40:28 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 8-Feb-87 04:27:09 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP>
Distribution: world
Organization: Harvard University, Cambridge MA
Lines: 45

In article <464@yetti.UUCP>, oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit) writes:
> 	The discussion of this so-called PD Yacc comes and goes thru
> 	this net, and *every time*, until I am blue in the face, I remind
> 	people that it is *the* UNIX yacc, broken to little pieces so
> 	that it could compile under DECUS C compiler. I saw this program
> 	eons ago, on an RSX-11 tape. Some ignorabilis decided to submit
> 	it to DECUS, and it did not occur to DECUS to check. [Same thing
> 	happened with EMPIRE sources, but DECUS got a rap from the author,
> 	and withdrew the sources.]

	Good, this confirms what I thought.  (In one sense.)  And it is
still on the DECUS tape.  And it is sold.  And it is available to any
individual who wants it.  And it has (and had) no copyright notice.  How
can anyone claim that this is anything but public domain?  How can it
possibly be proprietary?  Why didn't AT&T prosecute the person who allowed
the source to leak?

> 	Therefore, in order to preserve the legal integrity of the net, *it is
> 	crucial that this YACC be gotten rid of*, unless you enjoy risking
> 	your company, yourself and the net..

	The legal "integrity" of the net???  That must be the responsibility
to protect AT&T's interests.  Can't AT&T do that by itself?

> 	There is, however, one important point: Unless a copyright violation
> 	is challenged, copyrights may be lost. Something for AT&T to think
> 	about - someone *sells* this bloody thing !!.

	Since there was no copyright, there is no copyright to be lost.  I
realize a work can be considered copyright without a notice, but only until
it is distributed.  AT&T relies on the proprietary nature of the code to
protect it.  They have not taken steps to protect that status.  And if
anyone has the means to take such steps, surely AT&T does.  Maybe the company
that sells yacc and lex knows something we don't.  Maybe they know that
yacc has become public domain.  Maybe all of unix has become public domain
and everyone is afraid to admit it :-)

> 	But than again, I said all of this before...

	But can someone who actually understands the *legal* (not moral)
aspects of this please, please comment?  The notion of publically available
information being proprietary is disconcerting.

					Dan Lanciani
					ddl@harvard.*