Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!rutgers!mit-eddie!husc6!wjh12!maynard!campbell
From: campbell@maynard.UUCP
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d
Subject: Re: Public Domain (?) Yacc (Important) [I TOLD the NET SO!!]
Message-ID: <828@maynard.BSW.COM>
Date: Thu, 12-Feb-87 07:25:14 EST
Article-I.D.: maynard.828
Posted: Thu Feb 12 07:25:14 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 13-Feb-87 05:52:27 EST
References: <142@ems.UUCP> <464@yetti.UUCP> <1186@husc6.UUCP> <3056@gitpyr.gatech.EDU> <1191@husc6.UUCP>
Reply-To: campbell@maynard.UUCP (Larry Campbell)
Organization: The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Lines: 59

In article <1191@husc6.UUCP> ddl@husc6.UUCP (Dan Lanciani) writes:
>
>	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.

Wrong.  Copyrighted information can be publicly available but the copyright
holder still has protected proprietary rights.  If someone copies a novel,
substituting their own name as author and removing the original copyright,
that doesn't suddenly make the novel public domain material.

The yacc case isn't black and white.  (Few interesting cases are -- otherwise
we wouldn't need judges, juries, and lawyers.)  Someone who, in good faith,
received a copy of the pirated yacc, not knowing about this controversy,
probably could not be sued successfully.  They could be enjoined from using
the sources, though, in the future, once notified of yacc's status.

On the other hand, if it could be shown that you *knew* about the controversy
and had reason to believe the source was proprietary (having discovered this
through the net), there is a chance you could be sued if you used the product
for commercial gain (selling it, or selling products built with it).

However, it's also true that if responsible individuals at AT&T were aware
of the piracy AND TOOK NO ACTION, the courts *might* decide that AT&T,
not being sufficiently concerned to defend their rights, had lost them.
This is how trademarks are lost (such as aspirin, which was once a trademark
of Bayer), and it's why Xerox gets all upset when people use xerox as
a verb.  It's also why Coca Cola has secret agents roaming the countryside
ordering "Coke" at restaurants, then sending a bottle of what they're served
to Atlanta for analysis.  If a restaurant serves something else, they're
sued.  This happened to Howard Johnson's and it cost them big bucks (six
figures, I believe).

In any event, what I would do with the sources are:

    1)	I sure wouldn't sell them.  (Unless the Austin Code Works knows
	something we all don't, they're living dangerously.)

    2)	I sure wouldn't use them to build a product for my company.

    3)	I wouldn't be afraid to use them for personal hacks.

    4)	I would add a comment at the top noting that their ownership
	is controversial, and that they *may* be copyrighted by AT&T,
	so if I gave a copy to anyone they'd be on notice that using
	the code to build products might be risky.

    5)	If AT&T finally bestirred itself and announced that yacc was
	indeed proprietary, I'd delete my copies.  Perhaps AT&T's legal
	case would be weak -- but it *would* have a case, and I sure
	don't want to waste time and money in court fighting it.  Life
	is too short and AT&T has too many lawyers.

Caveat lector:  I am not a lawyer.
-- 
Larry Campbell                                The Boston Software Works, Inc.
Internet: campbell@maynard.uucp             120 Fulton Street, Boston MA 02109
uucp: {alliant,wjh12}!maynard!campbell              +1 617 367 6846
ARPA: campbell%maynard.uucp@harvisr.harvard.edu      MCI: LCAMPBELL