Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!bloom-beacon!mit-eddie!killer!texbell!ssbn!bill
From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp
Subject: Re: HDB/BNU documentation
Summary: Ask AT&T
Message-ID: <1134@ssbn.WLK.COM>
Date: 2 Feb 89 13:07:22 GMT
References: <1132@ssbn.WLK.COM> <1133@ssbn.WLK.COM> <7593@chinet.chi.il.us>
Reply-To: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: na
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. and Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
Lines: 23

>In article <1133@ssbn.WLK.COM> I wrote:
[ doc & man pages are proprietary, I stopped sending them, "in good faith" ]

In article <7593@chinet.chi.il.us> les@chinet.chi.il.us (Leslie Mikesell) writes:
>Ok, what about the people who, in good faith, purchased something purported
>to contain HDB uucp and did not receive this part of the product?

I would have mailed but Les asked a question that probably was asked by several
others.  I don't think the answer is all that obvious.

I can't answer Les' question directly.  I have four binary licenses for HDB
and the documentation I described (except for printed man pages) wasn't
included with any of them.  I'll conclude from that that the doc I had is
included with a version of HDB that I didn't purchase.  I'll speculate that
it is included with the source license and that the proprietary markings I
didn't see were part of the license I don't have.  I don't think that the
binary license vendors omitted the documentation, I don't think it's supposed
to be distributed to a binary licensee, i.e. "this part of the product" is
not part of what we purchased.  Should I have figured that out before I
started the stir?  Probably, but I didn't, and I'm sorry for the stir.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill@ssbn.WLK.COM