From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: jsteve@superglobalmegacorp.com (Jason Stevens) Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2017 10:07:13 +0800 Subject: [TUHS] Why Linux not another PC/UNIX [was Mach for i386 ...] In-Reply-To: <58af66a8.RixQ2R2YtVU32E8p%schily@schily.net> References: <20170222161114.GT9439@mcvoy.com> <20170222182440.GE9439@mcvoy.com> <0793B069-8A80-450E-9E49-68C19448C2E9@planet.nl> <1487881864.3245413.890885432.69DE979F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <58af66a8.RixQ2R2YtVU32E8p%schily@schily.net> Message-ID: Isn't the lack of notices and wide distribution which also lead VM/370 and friends being in the public domain? It's odd now that history is fluid they are now considered open source? On February 24, 2017 6:48:08 AM GMT+08:00, Joerg Schilling wrote: >Random832 wrote: > >> On Thu, Feb 23, 2017, at 14:15, Clem Cole wrote: >> > 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 went away retroactively in 1978, and only applied to unpublished 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. > >From what I have in mind, there have been changes from around 1992 from >the >Berne convention. Before, US code (even when it was copyrighted) was >not >protected in Europe. > >I know that in former times, code was only copyrighted in the USA in >case a >sample had been given to a governmental site. I thought this changed >together >with the Berne convention.... > >Given that the AT&T code that was used by BSD does not have a copyright >notice, >it seems to be obvious that it was not copyrighted as AT&T did not give >a >sample to the government. > >So the question was whether there was a copyright problem with the fact >that >BSD included the code. The fact that AT&T did give away their code did >exhaust >the right to prevent distribution. > >BSD on the other side did bundle the right to distribute with the >condition >that the license notice must not be removed and that distributors need >to >announce that they include software developed at BSD. > >AT&T removed this notice and did not announce the porevenance. > >This is why BSD finally won... > >Jörg > >-- >EMail:joerg at schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 >Berlin >joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: >http://schily.blogspot.com/ >URL: http://cdrecord.org/private/ >http://sourceforge.net/projects/schilytools/files/ -- Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: