From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [50.116.15.146]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B1D06251E6 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 16:52:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4544442470; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:52:18 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-pg1-x531.google.com (mail-pg1-x531.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::531]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4019342176 for ; Mon, 14 Oct 2024 00:52:10 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-pg1-x531.google.com with SMTP id 41be03b00d2f7-7c1324be8easo3088950a12.1 for ; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 07:52:10 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=bsdimp-com.20230601.gappssmtp.com; s=20230601; t=1728831129; x=1729435929; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=qNWReLdxjVJCEjFQVijh1ksHwJe0Z7BQWX9luh8eLAg=; b=YD2w5pVYbLdnfsdFEoxmIuY6fKPoOAwDruSPl9FucOpuuiZ7FAlHxrf75oYb/9IvZX YGBv2Atf2APEi66iBp8nNQ/tuaN7JWHDaYd+k1uh3lDpJYJlsM7WR+Mtf7dcnWFBEQE9 biH3KuuIPsuj8AMJP+ufJvHwl9KFt2XrMNLvl6BdxFrHt8BS/ulpiHnX0tX4lD5lir9t horMeLX0kwgUeS/BE25KyIY/x6XWIphP4WE+tFRJ9YrmDWv0PWmnPcBbnSiUkqPu3Lf1 SwF3C5CbzOnrgPUlJM+X8kTg224fGmONM3Ak/xS789zSIo4jv+gJ29Dragg/AMWfhuQW IvJw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1728831129; x=1729435929; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=qNWReLdxjVJCEjFQVijh1ksHwJe0Z7BQWX9luh8eLAg=; b=TahkLKJiAvhLLeY3coqSioBCU3lVrHTDga/C6X+hzKNwNu+0VyfZuHPavixpDKCdrv GqWWzpL3fqTRSTI6m7dOq7pu/IMwNQFrghdOl6gTRj+09I1xebdQ4gQ/Eq39t8XOziOt ld8wMRYgmjwZb2SSOksJRIbzgE8nfoLKOJsqyZazsF7bN/CkJhp50oUzeUP4pJ1kIqR6 5SP6mbQLPxLfXCfuaaGyJg4IZpzRzv8QwVMB29V/JfqU6dKRc/xF/S4akgAMhMhH6hpc JQVQ6BpBzbkGQayOPjLPflWKrJwelwpKhPL/KezKyreYv2iP6jahIdA9feMRrvQ3+QbJ vusg== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCXku4lPjPqUiMMvkRr+kSfjFGQne4z680warlgUhaz3eWJhKddSrdk1w8ZXu9k+pZB0V4fv@tuhs.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YxEOcG/ZGQXcrIHdP050fhRL7oSYlZTZmIMzsEOPWAZOlav/WIR 14YzD4eKfo3ipqr20AKqLDxmXczquk2Y7NHWot1Gfe2UKqL/fIQT87+TqCPsgrr8k2jiSErvs2D m6DboxpDD0SG4iiLXsEgOij4c715VF+2uypzXPg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGPEDlID53s/qWofJq5UY70AW451jSmhPrJiyKD6gHbA4+m0tqPONw6ArJZNjoEIQXf8k0NMxf3LVQcRzUd3lg= X-Received: by 2002:a17:90b:30c6:b0:2d8:7a63:f9c8 with SMTP id 98e67ed59e1d1-2e2c81ba48fmr18654130a91.14.1728831129573; Sun, 13 Oct 2024 07:52:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202410130546.49D5knwV1564291@freefriends.org> <202410130831.49D8VENj1581180@freefriends.org> In-Reply-To: <202410130831.49D8VENj1581180@freefriends.org> From: Warner Losh Date: Sun, 13 Oct 2024 08:51:58 -0600 Message-ID: To: arnold@skeeve.com Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000005b001b06245cddd3" Message-ID-Hash: H4OXP4WRN7FC5IPQAQLUG535PKBOOJCY X-Message-ID-Hash: H4OXP4WRN7FC5IPQAQLUG535PKBOOJCY X-MailFrom: wlosh@bsdimp.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; header-match-tuhs.tuhs.org-0; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: tuhs@tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [TUHS] Re: Copyright on 4.2BSD? List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000005b001b06245cddd3 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 2:31=E2=80=AFAM wrote: > Steve Nickolas wrote: > > > On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, arnold@skeeve.com wrote: > > > > > Hi All. > > > > > > I'm working on revising my book on basic *nix programming, and for > > > the new chapter on sockets, I want to include some code from 4.2 BSD. > > > > > > Is there a copyright file somewhere for that code? I'm sure it's > > > copyright the Regents of the University of California, but I'd like > > > to include the text of the copyright in the book, so that everything'= s > > > clear. > > > > > > Thanks! > > > > > > Arnold > > > > > > > From what I would ascertain it would, logically, fall under a copyright > to > > UCB if it comes from UCB, and under 32V's (questionable) copyright if > not. > > > > Oldest BSD I have any sort of code for is 4.3 and at least by that poin= t > > most of the Berkeley stuff is marked with this copyright string: > > > > /* > > * Copyright (c) 198x Regents of the University of California. > > * All rights reserved. The Berkeley software License Agreement > > * specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution. > > */ > > > > Some earlier stuff only has the first line. > > > > -uso. > > Thanks. But, ... is there some sort of copying permissions to > include also? Or is it the same as 32V and covered by Caldera license? > No. For 4.2BSD we're firmly in the 'we send this to anybody that has an AT&= T license only; era, and in such an era, there's not going to be clarity.I don't think the regents have made a definitive statement regarding code from this era after the historic Unix license from Caldera. The next best thing is looking a the model license that most people signed ot get the 4.2BSD tapes and see what that says. A quick google search didn't turn up the model 4.2BSD license agreement, but it's likely similar to https://cm-bell-labs.github.io/who/dmr/bsdi/BSD_ATT_License.pdf which sets forth the terms of copying within AT&T, but is likely broadly similar to other licensees now that either there's no 32V copyright or there's permission to copy 32V for these purposes. The most salient part is likely: Proper Credit and Recognition. In the use of any part of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, AT&T will give appropriate credit to the University and the Electrical Engineering and Computer Sciences Department at the Berkeley Campus of the University of California and Other Contributors for their roles in its development and will require sublicensees to give such credit. If AT&T is providing documentation similar to that which is provided with 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, notices similar to those included in that documentation suffice to satisfy this requirement. If AT&T is providing new documentation, this requirement will be satisfied if each document includes the following statement: 'This software and documentation is based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software distribution under license from The Regents of the University of California. We acknowledge the following individuals and institutions for their role in its development: [insert names of individuals and institutions which appear in the documentation provided to AT&T as part of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD for those portions of said Distribution used by AT&T.]' This suggests you should include the phrase above, or one that's similar to= it that's more appropriate for the context, to comply with the spirit of what was most likely in those original 4.2BSD agreements. I don't think it will get any better clarity than guessing based on this document that came to light as part of the AT&T litigation. I believe this is independent of the 32V determination because the copyright to the changes hasn't ever been challenged. However, since it's just snippets of code that's otherwise available, and since you're using it in a work that's clearly an academic critique or criticism of a de-minimis portion of 4.2BSD, it may fall under 'fair use' and not need any specific permission. Given the release of 4.2BSD was 40 years ago or so, and the regents have generally been uninterested in policing the license compliance of 4.2 code, i suspect that an acknowledgement would suffice to keep them from doing anything. It would also comply with the general intent of the licenses and practices at the time and even if all that failed, there's several other reasons that would make such use in your book easily defensible. Sorry I didn't have a better, easy and clear answer. Warner --0000000000005b001b06245cddd3 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 2:31=E2=80=AF= AM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote= :
Steve Nickolas= <usotsuki@buric.= co> wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
>
> > Hi All.
> >
> > I'm working on revising my book on basic *nix programming, an= d for
> > the new chapter on sockets, I want to include some code from 4.2 = BSD.
> >
> > Is there a copyright file somewhere for that code?=C2=A0 I'm = sure it's
> > copyright the Regents of the University of California, but I'= d like
> > to include the text of the copyright in the book, so that everyth= ing's
> > clear.
> >
> > Thanks!
> >
> > Arnold
> >
>
> From what I would ascertain it would, logically, fall under a copyrigh= t to
> UCB if it comes from UCB, and under 32V's (questionable) copyright= if not.
>
> Oldest BSD I have any sort of code for is 4.3 and at least by that poi= nt
> most of the Berkeley stuff is marked with this copyright string:
>
> /*
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* Copyright (c) 198x Regents of the University of Californ= ia.
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* All rights reserved.=C2=A0 The Berkeley software License= Agreement
>=C2=A0 =C2=A0* specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution. >=C2=A0 =C2=A0*/
>
> Some earlier stuff only has the first line.
>
> -uso.

Thanks.=C2=A0 But, ... is there some sort of copying permissions to
include also?=C2=A0 Or is it the same as 32V and covered by Caldera license= ?

No. For 4.2BSD we're firmly in th= e 'we send this to anybody that has an AT&T
license only;= era, and in such an era, there's not going to be clarity.I don't t= hink the
regents have made a definitive statement regarding code = from this era after the
historic Unix license from Caldera. The n= ext best thing is looking a the model license
that most people si= gned ot get the 4.2BSD tapes and see what that says.=C2=A0 A quick google
search didn't turn up the model 4.2BSD license agreement, but = it's likely similar to
the terms of copy= ing within AT&T, but is likely broadly similar to other licensees=C2=A0= now
that=C2=A0 either there's no 32V copyright or there's= permission to copy 32V for these
purposes. The most salient part= is likely:
	  Proper Credit and =
Recognition.  In the use of any part of 4.2
	  BSD and 4.3 BSD, AT&T will give appropriate credit to the
	  University and the Electrical Engineering and Computer
	  Sciences Department at the Berkeley Campus of the University
	  of California and Other Contributors for their roles in its
	  development and will require sublicensees to give such
	  credit.

	  If AT&T is providing documentation similar to that which is
	  provided with 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, notices similar to those
	  included in that documentation suffice to satisfy this
	  requirement. If AT&T is providing new documentation, this
	  requirement will be satisfied if each documen=
t includes the
	  following statement:  'This software and documentation is
	  based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software distribution
	  under license from The Regents of the University of
	  California.  We acknowledge the following individuals and
	  institutions for their role in its development:  [insert
	  names of individuals and institutions which appear in the
	  documentation provided to AT&T as part of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD
	  for those portions of said Distribution used by AT&T.]'

This suggests you should include the phrase above, or one that's= similar to it
that's= more appropriate for the context, to comply with the spirit of what was mo= st likely
in those origin= al 4.2BSD agreements. I don't think it will get any better clarity than=
guessing based on this d= ocument that came to light as part of the AT&T litigation.
=
I believe this is independent of the = 32V determination because the copyright to the
changes hasn't ever been challenged. However, si= nce it's just snippets of code that's
otherwise available, and since you're using it i= n a work that's clearly an academic critique=C2=A0
or criticism of a de-minimis portion of 4.2BS= D, it may fall under 'fair use'=C2=A0 and not need
any specific permission. Given the releas= e of 4.2BSD was 40 years ago or so, and the
regents have generally been uninterested in policing the= license compliance of 4.2 code,
i suspect that an acknowledgement would suffice to keep them from d= oing anything. It
would a= lso comply with the general intent of the licenses and practices at the tim= e and
even if all that fa= iled, there's several other reasons that would make such use in your
book easily defensible.

Sorry I didn't have a better, easy and clear= answer.
Warner
--0000000000005b001b06245cddd3--