From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: wb@freebie.xs4all.nl (Wilko Bulte)
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2005 13:05:58 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] unix non disclosure clauses
In-Reply-To: <7ff9538b050420015572373a6d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7ff9538b050420015572373a6d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050420110558.GA47232@freebie.xs4all.nl>

On Wed, Apr 20, 2005 at 10:55:39AM +0200, martin hardie wrote..
> Hi i joined this list as I found some intersting stuff in its archives
> and I am working on my Phd in law concerning the logic and rhetoric of
> FOSS and i thought maybe the list would be a good source of
> knowledgable information.
> 
> I am currently  proofing a draft thesis chapter I have put together on
> the early history of Unix and have a question or two arising from text
> of the early  licences.
> 
> The 1974 licence to the Catholic University in Holland (I guess this

That must be the KUN.  Katholieke Universiteit Nijmegen.

> was to Andy Tanenbaum) has a confidentiality clause in it. I presume
> this was a standard clause.

You might want to ask hjt at atcomputing.nl, as he was one of the folks
that got it into the KUN.

> That is interesting from lots of perspectives - the myth of a unix
> commons, which we both know  is a myth in the GNUish sense although
> people like Lessig still say it in their tomes; and from the
> perspective that copyright or patents where not used to cover the code
> but confidential inofrmation - this resonates with my work with
> Aboriginal  artists in Australia and their communal system of
> knowledge production and with the notion of trust and equity which I
> am building towards in this research.
> 
> But right now what interests me is a bit more in the context of
> contemporary "licence fetishism" or the way licences and IP were
> viewed back then. I am sort of trying to deal with the way that many
> commentators (like Lessig, Wayner and even Raymond) credit changes in
> unix and linux to legal command. I just don't buy that but position
> them more in the context of the globalisation of production.
> 
> Anyway, the question -  the licences prohibited dissemination of Unix
> to third parties - eg in the case of universities the system could
> only  be given/shown to students and employees.
> 
> How then was the question of bugs, fixes and updates dealt with? Did
> everything come back to Bell and then get dealt with from there.  IE
> the question of who controllled "R&D"? Did universities talk directly
> to each other? And if so when did this become a problem for AT&T? If
> at all? If they did was there any conception that they  were breaking
> the licence conditions?
> 
> I am also intrigued about Raymond's comment that Ken quietly shipped
> out copies of the program with a note "love Ken". Is this based in
> fact? was it a covert operation? And is it tied into the matter of
> turning a blind eye to licence conditions eg the unis talking to each
> other directly?
> 
> Is that clear? If the uni's were talking to each other and Ken was
> sending out gift wrapped parcels ......... maybe there was a commons
> but not one annointed by law.....
> 
> 
> Thanks
> 
> Martin
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> 
--- end of quoted text ---

-- 
Wilko