Xref: utzoo comp.mail.uucp:2713 comp.sys.att:5414
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!iuvax!rutgers!bellcore!texbell!ssbn!bill
From: bill@ssbn.WLK.COM (Bill Kennedy)
Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp,comp.sys.att
Subject: Re: HDB/BNU documentation
Summary: It's not legal, it's proprietary
Keywords: legal?
Message-ID: <1133@ssbn.WLK.COM>
Date: 1 Feb 89 03:04:54 GMT
References: <1132@ssbn.WLK.COM>
Followup-To: poster
Distribution: na
Organization: W.L. Kennedy Jr. & Associates, Pipe Creek, TX
Lines: 24

In article <1132@ssbn.WLK.COM> I wrote:
[ I said I had HDB man pages and documentation and had been mailing it,
  I wanted to know if it's OK to post ]

> So here are my questions -  Would it be legal for me to post this doc
> package?

I have gotten replies from very reliable sources that it is neither legal
for me to post it, nor is it legal for me to have it and it was not legal
for me to mail it to the sites who asked for it.  Well, I can't put the
rain back in the sky, but I can stop doing something that I wouldn't have
in the first place, had I known better.  I was not joshing about not being
sure where it came from and there certainly weren't any proprietary
markings on it, so I asked in good faith.  Now, in good faith, I'll remove
it from my system.  I have declined to send it to people who requested it
after I found out that it's still AT&T intellectual property and will do
the same for any requests on the way.  I'd have cancelled the article, but
I had already gotten a number of replies, so I thought that would have
been ineffectual.

Sorry folks, I didn't know any better, thanks to those who enlightened me.
-- 
Bill Kennedy  usenet      {killer,att,cs.utexas.edu,sun!daver}!ssbn!bill
              internet    bill@ssbn.WLK.COM