Xref: utzoo comp.sys.att:3496 comp.unix.questions:7606 comp.sys.ibm.pc:16394
Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!lll-winken!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ames!killer!dcs!wnp
From: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
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: <117@dcs.UUCP>
Date: 15 Jun 88 12:18:44 GMT
References: <403@mancol.UUCP> <102@dcs.UUCP> <395@hotlr.ATT> <109@dcs.UUCP> <36@gnosys.UUCP> <308@marob.MASA.COM>
Reply-To: wnp@dcs.UUCP (Wolf N. Paul)
Organization: DCS, Dallas, Texas
Lines: 38

In article <308@marob.MASA.COM> samperi@marob.UUCP (Dominick Samperi) writes:
>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?

If they did, I am sure AT&T would require them to display a copyright notice
to that effect somewhere. However, all their disks, manuals, etc, only show
a MKS copyright.

There are also numerous other examples of people developing functional clones
of UNIX -- including the same names for commands -- without AT&T taking any
action: Regulus, Coherent, Minix, etc.

There are numerous PD programs which duplicate UNIX functionality, and which
AT&T is surely aware of because they are distributed over this network: 
PD Tar, AFIO (a cpio clone), GNU AWK, etc. No action was taken against any
of these by AT&T. In fact, John Gilmore had a letter from AT&T's legal dept.
stating that UUSLAVE, which is functionally equivalent to uucico, did not
contain any AT&T code and did not infringe on their rights.

That's why I am not sure that the CSS case has the impact Dominick hints at
above.

And finally, as I said in my original reply, I heard from someone in the orbit
of the CSS principals that they were almost certain that CSS had had access to
VI source code, and that was right after PC-VI first appeared.

Since ATT&T and CSS settled out of court, there is no knowing what AT&T would
have ended up showing and arguing in court, unless CSS violates the terms of
the settlement and the thing comes to trial after all.
-- 
Wolf N. Paul * 3387 Sam Rayburn Run * Carrollton TX 75007 * (214) 306-9101
UUCP:     ihnp4!killer!dcs!wnp                 ESL: 62832882
DOMAIN:   wnp@dcs.UUCP                         TLX: 910-280-0585 EES PLANO UD