Source for Unix???

[Blair P. Houghton]

Note:  except that it discusses peripherally the source of
the source of unix internals, this has nothing to do with
UNIX(TM).  Group-charter purists please hit 'n' and save
yourselves the trouble.  There's nothing you can tell me
about appropriateness of postings that I haven't already
dismissed as illogic and hypocrisy, anyway.  "Trust me, I
know what I'm doing." (Sledge Hammer; every episode.)

In article <MEISSNER.91Feb17165413 at curley.osf.org> meissner at osf.org (Michael Meissner) writes:
>If they [Library of Congress] do, they would be bound legally by the
>same constraints anybody else is.  Mainly, because the book contained
>the source code to V6 [a trade secret held by AT&T], you were required
>to have a valid V6 license to obtain the book.  The reasoning is the
>same as for other restricted works, such as atomic bomb plans.

Atomic bomb plans are kept secret under DoD security
classifications.  Non-DISCO industrial security has nothing
to do with the government aside from laws that prosecute
industrial spies.  But then, AT&T could probably get SysIII
classified, if they asked nicely enough :-).

If AT&T had copyrighted the V6 code, then anyone could copy
and distribute it, after paying a reasonable royalty, and
anyone with a legally made and transferred copy could pass
that one copy around to everyone on the planet.  The same
is true if AT&T had patented the code.

The purpose of copyrights and patents is to promote
*disclosure*:  the government protects the individual's
right to profit from his intellectual property in return
for having the information disseminated freely (if not "for
free") to the general public.  If there were no copyright
or patent systems, then science would necessarily be a
matter of developing all things from first principals (or
joining the right industrial cartel :-( ).

Now, if Lions had printed the V6 code without license from
AT&T (not necessarily a possession-and-use license, which
is one of the unfortunate debacles of the history of
commercial software, but truly a copying license, which
allows them to copyright the book that contains the code),
then they're a valid target for any manner of legal
action.  Whether the Library of Congress is required to
sequester their copies of bootlegged material I do not
know.

>From what I've seen, if AT&T was forced to "buy-up" all
copies of the book, then it's a fair bet Lions had a
license to copy it, and then the Library of Congress is
required by law to obtain one and provide that version to
the public, forever.  (Congressmen are, after all, in the
public, but Joe Voter is permitted to take a look.)  If
AT&T bought that copy back, as well, and it's a copyrighted
work of Lions', then somebody has likely violated the law.
(Patents and copyrights are not retractible.  They may be
rescinded, but that's a recission of the protections, not
the disclosure requirements, except of course on parts not
yet disclosed).

				--Blair
				  "Guess who almost joined up
				   at the Patent office...I may
				   yet seek a JD..."

P.S.
    In the US of A it is legal to patent and license
(often for exhorbitant fees) inventions that, when freely
distributed, save countless lives.  Most other nations are
not hampered by this sort of antisocial capitalism.  They
require companies to patent safety-inventions, and to grant
*free* licenses to anyone who wishes to use or produce them.

    Germany is one of them.

    So, when Werner von Engineerschaft, the Director of
Whateverkraft at Mercedes-Benz, grins grandfatherly at the
guy off-camera and bleats, "veef nefer enforced de patent,"
about MB's energy-absorbing-body-design techniques, you
can take smoldering comfort in the knowledge that he's
telling a big, profitable half-truth.  I usually just
shout, "because it's BLEEDING ILLEGAL for you to DO SO,
you DISSEMBLING WHORE!" at the TV...