Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:5824 comp.mail.uucp:1044
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!decvax!yale!husc6!linus!philabs!rob
From: rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Packet size & number of windows in UUCP (AT&T licensing policy)
Message-ID: <3313@briar.Philips.Com>
Date: 25 Feb 88 13:42:42 GMT
References: <567@acornrc.UUCP> <13668@pyramid.pyramid.com> <788@vixie.UUCP> <398@cogen.UUCP> <157@istop.ist.CO.UK> <15322@pyramid.pyramid.com> <4684@mcdchg.UUCP>
Organization: Philips Laboratories, Briarcliff Manor, NY
Lines: 29

In article <4684@mcdchg.UUCP> heiby@mcdchg.UUCP (Ron Heiby) writes:
|Carl S. Gutekunst (csg@pyramid.UUCP) writes:
|> And any site that has
|> a source license can compile it for a neighboring site that has only a binary
|> license, and give them the binary.

>I think that this should be checked before being acted upon.  Once upon a time,
>I asked about doing just such a thing.  (It was even in the context of UUCP!)
>The answer I got was that the source site must have a Binary Redistribution
>Agreement (called "Customer Provisions", I believe, whatever that means) with
>AT&T in order to distribute binaries derived from licensed software.  Not only
>that, but said source site would be liable to AT&T for an additional binary
>royalty, even if the recipient of the program already had a copy from a
>different vendor and had already paid a binary royalty.

at the usenix berkeley bof, it was mentioned that UC Berkeley was
trying to license their microvaxen for 4.3 binaries.  since microvaxen
are sold with an OS (either vms or ultrix), berkeley asked at&t if
they got ultrix, could they put 4.3 on them and not have to pay
additional license fees (since both stem from 4.2, which contain the
SAME original at&t source code).  at&t said no, they would have to pay
$400 a unit to put 4.3 on them.  

more and more the GNU project looks alot better to me.  

rob
-- 
				william robertson
				rob@philabs.philips.com