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 12562 invoked from network); 11 Jan 2022 23:58:04 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 11 Jan 2022 23:58:04 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 09FDC9D005; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:58:02 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DE88E9CFC9; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:57:45 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=fail reason="signature verification failed" (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="vCXmdUVN"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id E86BD9CFC9; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:57:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ua1-f47.google.com (mail-ua1-f47.google.com [209.85.222.47]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1C8F59C78F for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 09:57:44 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ua1-f47.google.com with SMTP id h11so1687619uar.5 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:57:44 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=A5ypDSg6EL4xCtIchQ743I3B7pb5t3B2qsURCN0asbc=; b=vCXmdUVNO650DR/7noLhTDzEb1xHS/Nl9ReWngforLx72+d4pAwDc7RFisT4IIV3kn DConQuGqLOFK859fPShuk8gL3g2/kpcvET6eXe5y3Qd3JCBistC/ObTVmbwzuuFfOUmq 5bH4Z/rdSj5dBmFKnRWmvb/Qa/xgTEWr/HSEfdMuObCfydk2FQ2FxDSsg8IBua0bcUOF TIk7mj8PeoEOyG2BmTJiWn4SNwWSh02m21jlsuBPcbQlR+QdC8S8NkOKiTHNKsH/JVXi E0wzUaHtq5ZoPKLlGKx9TvpakzXMOtWJRdbSaw4DIiEBta3ztc4V/rSjtTO9Lf1qAMmj UROA== 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=A5ypDSg6EL4xCtIchQ743I3B7pb5t3B2qsURCN0asbc=; b=pQ/u6RSBYTLdoice1/H92tI6TSVXHzPamlgXrU1dT0hXv1LMJMnovfzwvYfckb6FXR 33sxjbfMRFvb69QthAi2X15x6xGzLVXUR8CdzYa1xghXhxx0VM1o/mc/L3FXk/HiWRfn +fk0hr9PRceXX/1M+/83+0aYiGYiTyV+F4kg9vhSFx9iGpqMEwMgmtB1lV/IyywqTAqF Gpng5t9L5m3dgnSM5VbttNvt+BTvkdmz9vZFF8I61bqjhggVfQLzq2wBFwAlsoNMKM37 435M2SleVdBAFTLeVBMP2cVO+4bwjrp5HwmmvikngenOxcH4uoc9TNgBe++1xc+ZImvy BvMw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531/E00IqXDqd0hEmEX7dv0vu3BF545zLTz3bkMV227alIn9+RYI kAq9bdFSF/eZOkwSfxlnKExVUVVnzNWy6a97J+5rfA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJybD3y140hi3LJXTPBVve2B9RvtP37qG5BRLnZ0u7YYSlVMqfHlIGYIKXe4X24s0Dx37+epQROhzUO9w/t2DSo= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6102:ec2:: with SMTP id m2mr3344319vst.6.1641945463079; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 15:57:43 -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: From: Warner Losh Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:57:32 -0700 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000011613205d557387b" 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" --00000000000011613205d557387b Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Clem Cole wrote: > The AT&T case basically said that once the implementations was released, > AT&T could no longer call anything a trade secret, although they *do the > own the IP and copyright* > Not entirely true. There was a preliminary ruling that said that 32V might have lost its copyright protections because it was distributed outside of AT&T without proper copyright notices, as required by the pre-1980 copyright law. This detail was what caused AT&T to settle before it could become finalized (the preliminary ruling said there was a substantial likelihood that this would be the outcome, to be pedantic). To the extent that AT&T had complied with copyright laws requirements, they would retain their copyrights though. Warner --00000000000011613205d557387b Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Clem = Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
<= /div>
The AT&= amp;T case basically said that once the implementations was released, AT&am= p;T could no longer call anything a trade secret, although they do the o= wn the IP and copyright

Not entirely true. There was a preliminary ruling that said that 32V mig= ht have lost its copyright protections because it was distributed outside o= f AT&T without proper copyright notices, as required by the pre-1980 co= pyright law. This detail was what caused AT&T to settle before it could= become finalized (the preliminary ruling=C2=A0said there was a substantial= likelihood that this would be the outcome, to be pedantic). To the extent = that AT&T had complied with copyright laws requirements, they would ret= ain their copyrights though.

Warner
--00000000000011613205d557387b--