From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.8 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 16829 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2022 15:48:37 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Jan 2022 15:48:37 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C17EA9C1D9; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 01:48:35 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 254FF9C153; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 01:48:06 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (1024-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ccc.com header.i=@ccc.com header.b="MshJARIA"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 79C769C153; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 01:48:04 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-qt1-f171.google.com (mail-qt1-f171.google.com [209.85.160.171]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DE5379C0BE for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 01:48:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-qt1-f171.google.com with SMTP id i8so765583qtw.0 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 07:48:03 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=QjLrd9kXeuaHTt+NbNK6GXgrh3LxC+HtZh1/s8LX6eI=; b=MshJARIAgOCXOOsavvvGiziQx37pC3ETl1URAUw5B9u4A3ZxwA5BMMggHU+aM/+1Mp 8AlQskY7ALf8K7Q9qNSdI1mtQ2nSuSU2uMLWpxg/l5vzgG12vyfpaYimUWbeA11NQS6c gXySASPUagzdnDla271vuA9lGfNtrhjt934ns= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=QjLrd9kXeuaHTt+NbNK6GXgrh3LxC+HtZh1/s8LX6eI=; b=dfVGnrCm1zmUcm/nRqcQZ6Z4l7PyNqL9HfDiCf0ndXT00bVh119LvJRgrbGCfCRaUE KeeJtPQCG0MS6aTT6s0Fq32kB+nVk73Q5qK01fDlf6DJA7BZ5AfvmG+mvnbHcm1DmCon qRt4GsH+gHM+C7+QdNwVuCceInH0x7wJDiQigRtJJhqicqyT/xuIVZL+SnyCCzzNz6Oz Rjh+Dk5lFuNzTVrLw93R/9CujhBvmXzrnNei4bfVjACe4KfqsDIzDuPXLhR2chL6ceMV P3AJJyB7CWEF/XO++YWnlpTnyTpEVaZuCilLDAEdgU0F0vkDJVLW+cJ2ZAgElVw4Kte/ FA0A== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5312Isu4CyJbkiqvYpgStJKeW02JoTanS1l0JrFeqQkDT5cCMgCW uslVDQwiCWuyutHGpy9DY5mQe+Bo6wcGMkvAZpI2Vhs37wX/2w== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyiZcRDCzkbbw6PhjVgRrs+f6nYhkjmuGZ0aSguGqdIH2s4q2zUzoqdybeERruIqgxZrgMTHIVEcde/+9qI3lw= X-Received: by 2002:a05:622a:3c7:: with SMTP id k7mr4093881qtx.307.1641916082544; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 07:48:02 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <20211231234039.GU31637@mcvoy.com> <20220101005605.GL75481@eureka.lemis.com> <20220101031511.GB8135@mcvoy.com> <20220111015901.GE25103@eureka.lemis.com> <4409b91cd794867d@orthanc.ca> <20220111024218.GE3441@mcvoy.com> In-Reply-To: <20220111024218.GE3441@mcvoy.com> From: Clem Cole Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 10:47:36 -0500 Message-ID: To: Larry McVoy Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d9f55505d550603f" Subject: Re: [TUHS] Demise of TeX and groff (was: roff(7)) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: TUHS main list , Douglas McIlroy Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --000000000000d9f55505d550603f Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Mon, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:43 PM Larry McVoy wrote: > It's docs. The *roff docs were locked up with the Unix license. Larry point taken but ... I'm not so sure that specific statement is true. It may have >>seemed<< that way to you, but I'm fairly sure that in fact, it was not. The documents were published independently to the source and use of the binary license. I do think that some had an AT&T copyright on them, but I'm not even sure all of them had a copyright associated. The AT&T license in fact explicitly allowed replication of the documents that came with UNIX could be duplicated and distributed without violating the license. Numerous people sold copies of them. Any (student or not) could go into the MIT or Harvard Coop and buy a copy. Same in the Berkeley area, IIRC Stacy's [a famous Telgraph ave bookstore] had the BSD (as well as other systems) manuals. Beyond base duplication, numerous companies published parts of them and in particular parts if not all of the roff manual. For instance, a firm in Seattle called CSSC published a number of reference guides and use guides based on them [I just found a number of copies of some of them this weekend as I'm resetting up my basement. I have a number of duplicates that I am offering to the hive BTW]. I do believe that you are correct that both the sources (and associated binaries) to original nroff/groff and ditroff were licensed and needed and an AT&T license, but not the documents themselves. Clem --000000000000d9f55505d550603f Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On M= on, Jan 10, 2022 at 9:43 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
It's docs.=C2=A0 The *roff docs were locked up with the Un= ix license.

Larr= y point=C2=A0taken but ... I'm not so sure that specific=C2=A0statement= is true.

It may have >>seemed<< that way to you, but I= 'm fairly sure that in fact, it was not. =C2=A0 The documents were publ= ished independently to the source and use of the binary license.=C2=A0 I do= think that some had an AT&T copyright on them, but I'm not even su= re all of them had a copyright associated. =C2=A0 The AT&T license in f= act explicitly=C2=A0allowed replication of the documents that came with UNI= X could be duplicated and distributed without violating the license.=C2=A0 Numerous=C2=A0people= sold copies=C2=A0of them.=C2=A0 Any (student or not) could go into the MIT= or Harvard Coop and buy a copy. =C2=A0 Same in the Berkeley area, IIRC Sta= cy's [a famous Telgraph=C2=A0ave bookstore] had the BSD (as well as oth= er systems) manuals.

= Beyond base duplication, numerous=C2=A0companies published parts of the= m and in particular parts if not all of the roff manual.=C2=A0 For instance= , a firm in Seattle called CSSC published a number of reference guides and = use guides based on them [I just found a number of copies of some of them t= his weekend as I'm resetting up my basement. I have a number of duplica= tes that I am offering to the hive BTW].

= I do believe that you are correct that both the sou= rces (and associated binaries) to original nroff/groff and ditroff were lic= ensed and needed and an AT&T license, but not the documents themselves.=

Clem
--000000000000d9f55505d550603f--