AT&T and Unix

[Chuqui]

In article <558 at ncoast.UUCP> bsa at ncoast.UUCP (Brandon Allbery) writes:
>And, again, you miss the point of his posting.  Why does AT&T PLAY FAVORITES?
>Why do educational institutions -- repeat EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, which
>(with the exception of UC Berkeley) do NOT act as OEMs or VARs for Unix --
>get the source cheap, while small-machine Unix users don't?  While this
>was okay when Unix was a near-nothing, they should pay the same as anyone
>else does now -- meaning, either AT&T raises proces to universities,
>or it lowers prices to us.
>
>Don't dodge his question, d*mn it.

Well, I'll try to not dodge the question, although I doubt you'll like the
answer.

I think the main reason they 'play favorites' with Unix is because the
educational institutions are the ones that have made Unix what it is
today-- they started by giving it away to them because they had to-- the
regulatory agencies that helped run AT&T while it was the phone company
wouldn't let them sell it. So, there is a history of this two level sales
system. The reason they still do it has a minor reason and a major
reason-- I'm sure they get a tax break for the educational donation, and by
making it available to schools, they are sure to develop entire generations
of computers freaks who demand to work on Unix, thereby setting up a long
term market for their products. Apple, of course, is doing the same for the
II and the Mac in the elementary, high, and University atmospheres, and
rather successfully as well. Giving away the source to small 'hackers'
doesn't have any advantage to AT&T-- you aren't bringing up future hackers
in a volume they could notice, they don't get tax breaks because you aren't
a charitable organization, and the licensing (AT&T seems to kill three or
four trees each time someone wants a license) would severely outstrip any
moneys they might get or any long term advantages they might see. Plus,
they really don't have anything in a hacker group to ensure they will keep
to the licensing agreements. Schools have lawyers they can beat on,
companies that put out 45K are serious enough to know they don't want
AT&T's lawyers coming down on them. What could they do to a hacker that got
a low cost license and then proceeded to post the sources to net.sources?
Take away his computer? Big deal.

Personally, I think the current situation is fair. The alternative,
realistically, is no source at all. They attempted that with the Blit
drivers and got beaten back. Hopefully, AT&T has learned that Unix simply
won't survive without source, but they also need to be given the ability to
make a reasonable profit (to fund further Unix development, of course) and
to make sure that their proprietary materials are protected. And, much as I
wish it wasn't, until someone goes to court and talks a court into removing
the restrictions, Unix source is proprietary. You wanna take on their
lawyers? I don't....

chuq
-- 
>From the ministry of silly talks:               Chuq Von Rospach
{allegra,cbosgd,hplabs,ihnp4,seismo}!nsc!chuqui nsc!chuqui at decwrl.ARPA

God is a trademark of AT&T Bell Labs
---
National Semiconductor does not require useless disclaimers on posted
material that is obviously not posted by company spokesmen...