Path: utzoo!utgpu!attcan!uunet!ncrlnk!ncrcae!ece-csc!mcnc!uvaarpa!haven!uflorida!mailrus!bbn!bbn.com!rsalz
From: rsalz@bbn.com (Rich Salz)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards
Subject: Re: Mach
Message-ID: <1164@fig.bbn.com>
Date: 7 Nov 88 19:56:19 GMT
References: <806@csvaxa.UUCP>
Lines: 20

> Could Mach  (or a
>sanitized AT&T cleansed version!) be a candidate for replacing Unix in
>the academic world? I've read that once CMU have  removed all the AT&T
>source, they intend  to distribute  it  for a neglegible  fee ...

The Unix source license uses "trade secret" terms, not just copyright.
In the United States, at least, this is a much more powerful form of
protection than just copyright.  If I read ATT source, then sit down
and release my free rewrite then I will expect that the nice ATT lawyers
will ask me to explain, in court, how I did not use the "techniques and
methods" which I agreed to hold secret when I signed their piece of
paper.

This is apparently (one of) the reasons that Stallman refuses to look at
ANY code that is covered by a Unix source license.

Disclaimer:  I am not a lawyer, and do not presume to speak for RMS, CMU,
    ATT, or any other acronym.
-- 
Please send comp.sources.unix-related mail to rsalz@uunet.uu.net.