Xref: utzoo comp.unix.questions:5884 comp.mail.uucp:1056
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!mcvax!ukc!eagle!icdoc!lmjm
From: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.questions,comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: Packet size & number of windows in UUCP (AT&T licensing policy)
Message-ID: <215@gould.doc.ic.ac.uk>
Date: 29 Feb 88 21:10:40 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> <3313@briar.Philips.Com>
Reply-To: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (Lee McLoughlin)
Organization: Dept. of Computing, Imperial College, London, UK.
Lines: 26

In article <3313@briar.Philips.Com> rob@philabs.Philips.Com (Rob Robertson) writes:
>|> 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!)
...
>>royalty, even if the recipient of the program already had a copy from a
>>different vendor and had already paid a binary royalty.

Its daft licensing like this that convinced me to start on a PD version
of uucp some time ago.  I was beaten to it by uuslave and friends
(which came out while I was still arguing with various people about a
whole bunch of legal wrangles to do with duplicating the uucp protocols
- something deeply ironic there).  I plan on trying to make something
as powerful as UKUUCP but based on uupc(?) - time permitting.  Then I
can post it!  Make life so much easier.

	Lee.
--
UKUUCP SUPPORT  Lee McLoughlin
	"What you once thought was only a nightmare is now a reality!"

Janet: lmjm@uk.ac.ic.doc, lmcl@uk.ac.ukc
DARPA: lmjm@doc.ic.ac.uk (or lmjm%uk.ac.ic.doc@nss.cs.ucl.ac.uk)
Uucp:  lmjm@icdoc.UUCP, ukc!icdoc!lmjm