[martin@freaknet.org: Re: [tg@66h.42h.de: [TUHS] licence of ditroff?]]

[martin@freaknet.org: Re: [tg@66h.42h.de: [TUHS] licence of ditroff?]]

[asbesto]

----- Forwarded message from Martin Guy <martin at freaknet.org> -----

From: Martin Guy <martin@freaknet.org>
To: asbesto <asbesto at freaknet.org>
Subject: Re: [tg at 66h.42h.de: [TUHS] licence of ditroff?]

Ta! 
  I already dealt with this in november - same person.
Is this an old message?
  The outcome was: it's in the public domain because they
published the original sources with no copyright notice at the
top... so they are going to create a new free troff from the
sources on my tape, more free than groff!

Yes!

     M

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005, asbesto wrote:

[snip]
> ----- Forwarded message from Thorsten Glaser <tg at 66h.42h.de> -----
> 
> I would like to know which licence the files at
> http://medialab.dyndns.org/~martin/tape/stuff/ditroff/
> are under.
[snip]
> ----- End forwarded message -----

-- 
[  asbesto ::: IW9HGS ::: freaknet medialab ::: radio#cybernet  ]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ I DELETE MSGS > 100K  & with ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD, SPAM ]
[ NON USARE LETTERE ACCENTATE ==== NON MANDARE MESSAGGI IN HTML ]
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20050127/ecdb33c1/attachment.sig>

[martin@freaknet.org: Re: [tg@66h.42h.de: [TUHS] licence of ditroff?]]

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20050127151532.GA5387 at freaknet.org>
            asbesto <asbesto at freaknet.org> writes:
:   I already dealt with this in november - same person.
: Is this an old message?
:   The outcome was: it's in the public domain because they
: published the original sources with no copyright notice at the
: top... so they are going to create a new free troff from the
: sources on my tape, more free than groff!
: 
: Yes!

It is believed to be in the public domain.  This is the heart of why
AT&T's case against UCB fell apart (and AT&T's failure to comply with
the BSD license).  However, there's never been a final ruling to this
effect and the law in the area is complicated.

Warner