Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site brl-tgr.ARPA Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!wanginst!ucadmus!harvard!seismo!brl-tgr!tgr!MRC@SU-SCORE.ARPA From: Mark CrispinNewsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: public domain? Message-ID: <6779@brl-tgr.ARPA> Date: Wed, 26-Dec-84 05:13:35 EST Article-I.D.: brl-tgr.6779 Posted: Wed Dec 26 05:13:35 1984 Date-Received: Thu, 27-Dec-84 06:22:23 EST Sender: news@brl-tgr.ARPA Organization: Ballistic Research Lab Lines: 30 I have been told the following things about the Unix software world. I would appreciate some commentary about how [un]true these statements are: . the object code from a proprietary C compiler is itself proprietary. . the executable binary of a C program is proprietary if it uses any of the standard library functions, which are proprietary. . any program written in yacc is proprietary, because the algorithms output by yacc are proprietary. . the proprietary ownership of all of this is good ol' Bell. In other words, what this seems to say is that I am unable to develop any applications in C or yacc and distribute binaries produced by a Bell C/yacc compiler without requiring that the site I distribute the software to has a Unix license. I have trouble adjusting to this, coming from a world (DEC-20) where no matter how proprietary the compiler may be, the ownership of the executable binaries belongs to the owner of the source code even if some library routine from the compiler's runtimes is used. Perhaps GNU may be a salvation, however the GNU developers may not be totally sympathetic to my efforts, as part of my plans include the development of proprietary software -- MY proprietary software. I don't want to be limited to selling only to Unix systems though. Have any of the legal eagles on this list worked out all the hairy issues involved? Does Bell really want to strangle the greater acceptance of C by making Unix licenses essential to run programs written in it? -------