Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3488 comp.unix.questions:7597 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16366
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!cmcl2!phri!marob!samperi
From: samperi@marob.MASA.COM (Dominick Samperi)
Newsgroups: comp.sys.att,comp.unix.questions,comp.sys.ibm.pc
Subject: Re: AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)
Keywords: AT&T, lawsuit, CSS, PC/Tools
Message-ID: <308@marob.MASA.COM>
Date: 14 Jun 88 13:46:39 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT> <109@dcs.UUCP> <36@gnosys.UUCP>
Reply-To: samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi)
Organization: 18th Street Consulting
Lines: 25

CIn article <36@gnosys.UUCP> gst@gnosys.UUCP (Gary S. Trujillo) writes:
C>In article <109@dcs.UUCP> wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul) writes:
C>> ...
C>> However, in order to have access to BSD source you need a UNIX source license,
C>> which these folks presumably did not have. Also, I would not be surprised
C>> to find out that vi/ex contains large chunks of ed source.
C>
C>at Berkeley, was that ex/vi *is* covered by the AT&T license EVEN THOUGH IT
C>CONTAINS NOT A SINGLE LINE OF CODE FROM ED!!  The fact is that they started
C>by hacking on the ed code, and even though they hollowed the thing out and

I started this discussion, and I'm not sure that the original question is
being addressed: the article said that AT&T won a settlement against CSS
because CSS "used ideas from UNIX." Source code copying may not have been
the issue. The question is: if I develop tools that have the same (or more)
functionality as some of the standard UNIX tools (ls, rm, cpio, tar, etc.),
then can I use the same program names? And if not, can I use the word "UNIX"
in describing the functionality of the tools? Does MKS have a license from
AT&T?

-- 
Dominick Samperi, NYC
    samperi@acf8.NYU.EDU	samperi@marob.MASA.COM
    cmcl2!phri!marob        	uunet!swlabs!mancol!samperi
      (^ ell)