From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: wes.parish@paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 12:06:12 +1300 (NZDT) Subject: [TUHS] Why Linux not another PC/UNIX [was Mach for i386 ...] In-Reply-To: <1487881864.3245413.890885432.69DE979F@webmail.messagingengine.com> References: <20170222161114.GT9439@mcvoy.com> <20170222182440.GE9439@mcvoy.com> <0793B069-8A80-450E-9E49-68C19448C2E9@planet.nl> <1487881864.3245413.890885432.69DE979F@webmail.messagingengine.com> Message-ID: <1487891172.58af6ae4822e8@www.paradise.net.nz> And given the Unix-based CS study and research going on world-wide at the time, AT&T versus the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley is an example of why you must maintain a careful separation of the arts of sticking your foot in your mouth and shooting yourself in the foot. Medical authorities warn against it, and who am I to dispute them? :) FWVLIW Wesley Parish Quoting Random832 : > On Thu, Feb 23, 2017, at 14:15, Clem Cole wrote: > > On Wed, Feb 22, 2017 at 6:51 PM, Paul Ruizendaal > wrote: > > > > > I'm not a lawyer, but wasn't part of the background that prior to > 1988 > > > in US law one could not claim both copyright and trade secret > protection, > > > and that for something to be copyrighted it had to expressly claim > to > > > be copyrighted material, and be registered as such? > > > > > ​Take this with what its worth (it came for free and I'm not a > lawyer > > ....) > Your comment got me thinking, why would try to change and can > you. So I > > asked on our patent counsel this am to explain the difference. For > > context in the USA we have Patent, Trade Secret, Copyright > Registration and > > Copyright Protection. Her reply to me was: > > > > Copyright *protection* is automatic – as soon as the code is written > it > > is > > considered protected. Copyright *registration* is just a formality > > necessary to instigate litigation. There is no time limit for > > registration. > > That's true today, but to my understanding wasn't true in 1988. (Well, > registration wasn't a requirement to be copyrighted - that requirement > went away retroactively in 1978, and only applied to unpublished works > then.) The change seems to have been March 1, 1989 from what I can > find. > > I think AT&T *tried* to construct a basis to claim that UNIX source > code > was "unpublished", even when distributed to source licensees (or e.g. > shell scripts which were by necessity distributed to all licensees), > possibly in service of this trade secret theory. Remember, the infamous > comment on the otherwise empty SVR2 /bin/true had two lines of > copyright > notice and three lines of assertion that it was unpublished. > > And if that attempt involved removing all copyright notices from V6, > V7, > and 32V (and presumably not registering any copyright on any > "unpublished" works pre-1978) then that might have killed any > copyright-based case. By the time the actual lawsuit happened, they > were > fully committed to the trade secret theory. > > > > Dennis Ritchie wrote: > > > > > > "Paul" wrote in message >> > > > .... > > >> ISTR there was a copyright notice in a Sys V /bin/true; explaining > > >> why we thought this was funny might be a violation of that > copyright! > > > > > > The local lawyers here also flip-flopped over the copyright issue. > > > I can't recall whether it was because of law changes or > reinterpretation > > > or whether they just changed their minds. The issue partly had to > do > > > with the question of whether a copyright claim amounted to > publication, > > > while their primary protection theory had to do with trade secret > > > protection, and its possible conflict with publication. > > > > > > At any rate, here is the whole contents of /bin/true in SVr2: > > > > > > # Copyright (c) 1984 AT&T > > > # All Rights Reserved > > > > > > # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T > > > # The copyright notice above does not evidence any > > > # actual or intended publication of such source code. > > > > > > #ident "@(#)true:true.sh 1.4" > "I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor, Method for Guitar "A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn