Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-lcc!lll-crg!hoptoad!jim
From: jim@hoptoad.uucp (Jim Joyce)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: uucp source copyright status - IMPORTANT
Message-ID: <1920@hoptoad.uucp>
Date: Sun, 22-Mar-87 15:40:49 EST
Article-I.D.: hoptoad.1920
Posted: Sun Mar 22 15:40:49 1987
Date-Received: Tue, 24-Mar-87 01:17:13 EST
References: <480@gouldsd.UUCP> <43183@beno.seismo.CSS.GOV> <17953@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <696@brl-sem.ARPA>
Reply-To: jim@hoptoad.UUCP (Jim Joyce)
Distribution: comp.os.minix
Organization: Nebula Consultants in San Francisco
Lines: 21
Keywords: copyright uucp uucico
Xref: mnetor comp.os.minix:447 comp.mail.uucp:359

The UNIX source has an interesting history -- it was not always trade secret!
Version 5, I believe, was copyright.  This means (if they followed through
and filed their copyright claim) that at least two pages of source
code were printed and sent to the Library of Congress by AT&T.  The legality of
claiming trade secret after such action has always seemed to me spurious.

Publication of Maurice Bach's The Design of the UNIX Operating System seems yet
another indication that UNIX's trade secret status is over.  AT&T has told me
that the trade secret was not simply the code, but the algorithms.  Bach has
divulged the algorithms.

I have been told that trade secrets must be kept secret;  but if over a
thousand people  in various organizations know something, is it still secret?
Some lawyers I have talked with argue yes, and others say no.

Naturally, I go along with the trade secret behavior because I do not want to
be the test case for AT&T.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer.
But:  My info about AT&T's posture on trade secret came from Otis Wilson and
Bob Guffey of AT&T Licensing.  And No, they wouldn't put anything in writing.