AT&T vs. CSS (PC/Tools)

[Bill.Stewart.<ho95c>]

In article <142 at wash08.UUCP> txr98 at wash08.UUCP (Timothy Reed) writes:
> A friend at ATT told me last year that ATT owned more than afew copies
> of the MKS toolkit on DOS PCs at most of their sites in Jersey.  If MKS
> didn't license unix from ATT, would that be considered tacit approval?

1) NO, it doesn't imply approval of legality, it just implies individuals
	think it's a useful package.

2) Either
a) <vendor> has rewritten their utilities from scratch, and therefore 
	doesn't need a license, or
b) <vendor> has a proper UNIX operating system (source) license, and is
	properly following the licensing rules for binary code sales
	(e.g. paying royalties), or
c) <vendor> has either ripped off source or failed to follow the rules
	in reselling binary products derived from that source.

As far as I can tell (speaking for myself rather than AT&T, of course),
a) Minix is pure reimplementation, so you don't need an AT&T license
	(just any Minix/Prentice-Hall/AndyTanenbaum licenses),

b) MKS has ported some UNIX tools and reimplemented others and is presumably
	following the rules for the products they use,

c) CSS is alleged to have ripped off stuff (that's for a lawsuit to
	decide, and I don't know the facts.)

a) "Z", from Manx Software is a pure reimplementation, but c) various
	people have ripped it off from *them* and distributed it on BBSes.
	(If you have a copy and haven't bought it from them, either destroy
	it, and encourage others to do so, or buy a curent copy which is 
	*MUCH* better than the ancient wimpy version you're using now.)
-- 
#				Thanks;
# Bill Stewart, AT&T Bell Labs 2G218, Holmdel NJ 1-201-949-0705 ihnp4!ho95c!wcs
Rnmail: /usr/wcs/.signature: not found