Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!topaz!klinzhai!webber
From: webber@klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU (Webber)
Newsgroups: comp.sources.d,misc.legal
Subject: Re: Yet another copyright question revisited
Message-ID: <199@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU>
Date: Tue, 28-Apr-87 02:48:57 EDT
Article-I.D.: brandx.199
Posted: Tue Apr 28 02:48:57 1987
Date-Received: Wed, 29-Apr-87 05:03:55 EDT
References: <4406@hi.uucp> <6280@amdahl.UUCP> <179@brandx.klinzhai.RUTGERS.EDU> <6394@amdahl.UUCP>
Distribution: na
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 39
Summary: refer to the recent posting by Mark Weiser
Xref: mnetor comp.sources.d:642 misc.legal:1521

In article <6394@amdahl.UUCP>, chongo@amdahl.UUCP (Landon Curt Noll) writes:
> In article <6013@ism780c.UUCP> tim@ism780c.UUCP (Tim Smith) writes:
>  >In an article, Webber writes:
[here chongo clipped reference to who wrote the original hypothetical as well 
as the text of the `above restriction'. The stuff I wrote starts with 
`HOPEFULLY NOT'.]
>  ><> Consider company X which sells a Un*x system & software.  Can they include
>  ><> code that contains the above restriction, free of charge?  Or in order
>  ><>words can one sell Un*x for $Y, and toss in such programs for free?
>  ><
>  >< HOPEFULLY NOT.  If the software did not add value to their
>  >< distribution, they wouldn't distribute it (tossing it in for free is
>  >< not a meaningful concept).
> 
> What is the difference between giving such software away on the USENET (by 
> posting it or passing the article on to other sites), and giving such software
> away via tape assuming that the copyright notice and stuff remains the same?
> Nothing as far as I can see.  
>... [various alternative senarios]

You might want to consider the recent message on this board
(comp.sources.d) by Mark Weiser (weiser@mimsy.umd.edu) which mentions the 
that the tape is available for non-commericial use only.  This seems
to be the key question.  As soon as you attempt to benefit
commercially from making the software available to someone, you are
violating such restrictions.  You might want to ask Weiser as to why
they chose to restrict their software to non-commercial use only.
However, regardless of whether or not you like it, that is what they
have done.  

As to your various hypotheticals, you should, of course, consult a
lawyer.  However, I would think that you would have difficulty
establishing that there was no commercial intent if the software was
mixed on a tape with other clearly for-sale software.  For that matter,
I would think you would have trouble if you offered it on a separate
tape that was restricted to being available only to your customers.


---------------- BOB (webber@aramis.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!topaz!webber)