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 13265 invoked from network); 12 Jan 2022 00:03:32 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 12 Jan 2022 00:03:32 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 407439CFFE; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:03:30 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DEF2B9CFC9; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:03:16 +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="g8ufUufp"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 087279CFC9; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:03:16 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-vk1-f182.google.com (mail-vk1-f182.google.com [209.85.221.182]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7CD1A9C78F for ; Wed, 12 Jan 2022 10:03:15 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-vk1-f182.google.com with SMTP id 19so621436vkl.2 for ; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:03:15 -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=dLtTv0R53UOX2fFeADI+F9cOP49ZWLOewHLNWZ0jlBk=; b=g8ufUufpPH8vHL+bUAE3XPDjaBev50PnEjVAyYj3zwV8jQV4iHiyBkwBtHggNwMGra 29KKKG/vywKaHPi6060fppFKMcZFaipMd+GhJYJpnPIesdQE40VCxGKK7L5J2fkReACr O7H3ugpacV80X7k87zp2gUNXBQTlMOsGIjS0E+YZATxTADBB9PXNAdibymm/Sux08G6w TW1osQevQMQCl5VWZDngXIFdi9aQjr1JgpkNJi7cnQYAMQEDpEOIEB+4EcfqCtwnrb7B kLX7+vsrCVEslUR+DxZWMPpoqa4LpLy44XJLU7Yd0V7kwA0/v27GRFHkm78WsEGu4BEX 4IxA== 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=dLtTv0R53UOX2fFeADI+F9cOP49ZWLOewHLNWZ0jlBk=; b=fBKUWnLdwHHip6k8nbkR90vtjQ49bABJzsYWUcZbBdA/HTkiACVrvh5185ELFXZW5s vHKo1Xg0b7w/fGa/lWcIU0W4SaVuNbWYeLzaaNNwh3AUiFLWkV05QPekVYZBCNlZNDnD mWaC8/uezq3pNkjNgnHHZQBamNC8F28YeP8uRJoCQsMcbQ/74x4Dc1VABLQ2YMdULxZ3 IOZ5FiqHSmEM1XPFOKKfHKOrcTtb6tRgL41LiNCYWdmDKZyCfoxejdK+w+TAa024Fyde o/twd1YZI3hz1OOxDkjnBqnihwRQqQ7D+8wBXgBU3bIPWsu31qbL/5o9cqV+Di5PLCEs 480g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531IFJcoDxfahC+E+mnfOP8cdlcyKBfw7yKWZMM2EHn4YB7Lqo8+ zvfTEpzkz8B0KgTd1LOMoPxgLOcAWVdbSMWJwd6sfg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyKMRvBekkT4oGC5GbTe+cKfNoqOnZIxXx1FnU/xY8EJ+LEBfglv/1t2omYzZPLH0hWYGyS6eKVXRtlIPdg7WQ= X-Received: by 2002:a1f:2844:: with SMTP id o65mr3562730vko.2.1641945794366; Tue, 11 Jan 2022 16:03:14 -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 17:03:03 -0700 Message-ID: To: Clem Cole Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000d063d405d5574bb0" 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" --000000000000d063d405d5574bb0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:57 PM Warner Losh wrote: > > > 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. > See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc. for a summary (see Pretrial section) and http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/USL/Doc-92.html for the ruling itself that discusses the details). "Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's claims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief." being the appropriate quote. Plantif == USL. Warner --000000000000d063d405d5574bb0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


=
On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 4:57 PM Warne= r Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> wrote:<= br>


On Tue, Jan 11, 2022 at 1:08 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
<= div dir=3D"ltr">
The A= T&T case basically said that once the implementations was released, AT&= amp;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 m= ight 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 cou= ld become finalized (the preliminary ruling=C2=A0said there was a substanti= al likelihood that this would be the outcome, to be pedantic). To the exten= t that AT&T had complied with copyright laws requirements, they would r= etain their copyrights though.

See=C2=A0https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki= /UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc. for a= summary (see Pretrial section) and=C2=A0http://sco.tuxrocks.com/Docs/USL/Doc-92.html for= the ruling itself that discusses the details).

&q= uot;Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelih= ood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V. Plaintiff's c= laims of copyright violations are not a basis for injunctive relief."<= /div>

being the appropriate quote. Plantif=C2=A0=3D=3D U= SL.

Warner
--000000000000d063d405d5574bb0--