Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site yetti.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!yetti!oz
From: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Legal Integrity)
Message-ID: <465@yetti.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 10-Feb-87 11:16:58 EST
Article-I.D.: yetti.465
Posted: Tue Feb 10 11:16:58 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 10-Feb-87 18:55:03 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP> <1186@husc6.UUCP> <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <1191@husc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: oz@yetti.UUCP (Ozan Yigit)
Organization: York University Computer Science
Lines: 65

In article <1191@husc6.UUCP> ddl@husc6.UUCP writes:
>
>	Are you sure this is the "legal integrity" of the net and not
>the AT&T-compatibility of the net?  I suspect that if I decided to legally
>challenge the net because of something I thought was stolen from me then
>nobody would even notice.  This is because I can't aford a good (set of)
>lawyer(s).  
>
	When I originally made the statement about LEGAL INTEGRITY, I meant
	for all purposes/individuals/organizations are concerned. This net
	is not the place to deal with legally shakey software. That is
	why, for example, although everyone from here to timbuktu had a copy
	of EARLY JOVE, nobody posted it to the net, due to some fragments of
	AT&T/BSD code. *That* is preserving legal integrity. 

>... X's owner can sue you out of existence, then the "law"
>is strongly biased in favor of might.
>
	What gives you the idea that any cornerstore joe *cannot* sue you
	out of existence ?? AT&T is not the issue here. A general state
	of concern for copyrights and licenses *is*. If one is dubious
	about the legal status of a piece of software, than one should
	first investigate, and take necessary steps for permissions etc,
	if possible, instead of just posting it. This is what I have done 
	with CHESS 0.5 for example, and I obtained permission to post in 
	*writing*. Also, when I wanted to post an emacs (CCA) I found in
	a usenix tape, I first asked around, and got a phone call from
	the author telling me that it was not distributable, because parts
	were from Montgomery's Emacs (AT&T).

>
>	Well, in fact, that's the question.  If the public knows your
>proprietary information, and you didn't protect it in any other way,
>then how can it still be proprietary?  Proprietary implies secret.
>
	This is a good point, but it still means that one has to check
	with a good lawyer, and better still, AT&T. I would be inclined
	to think that this yacc has been floating around too long without
	being challenged, and hence, it probably is no longer protected
	by licenses and the like. BUT, I do *not know* for sure !! If
	nobody knows, than It has to be checked out. Ignorance is no
	excuse in a court of law.
>
>...We have been having just such a discussion and AT&T hasn't claimed
>yacc.  Why are so many people outside of AT&T so anxious to do so for it?
>
	I know, and perhaps you know, that the YACC posted is *the* yacc.
	The concern here is for an attitude towards copyrighted/licensed
	material, and not for the health of AT&T. I dislike software
	hoarding and *black boxes*, but this does not imply disrespect
	for copyrights and/or intellectual property. If something has
	been copyrighted/licensed in a manner to disallow casual
	distribution/disclosure (read: un*x tools, goslings emacs, EMPIRE 
	in fortran [I had the sources for the last 3 or 4 years, but you 
	did not see it on the net. Three guesses as to why !!] or any 
	derivation from the original e.g. C version, etc), than that is 
	good enough for me for not to casually distribute/disclose, until 
	I see a legally acceptable document that indicates it is OK to 
	distribute/disclose.

oz
-- 
The best way to have a 		Usenet: [decvax|ihnp4]!utzoo!yetti!oz
good idea is to have a 		Bitnet: oz@[yusol|yuyetti].BITNET
lot of ideas.			Phonet: [416] 736-5053 x 3976