Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site desint.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxj!houxm!whuxlm!akgua!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!trwrb!desint!geoff From: geoff@desint.UUCP (Geoff Kuenning) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards,net.legal Subject: Re: yacc: public domain? Message-ID: <288@desint.UUCP> Date: Thu, 3-Jan-85 06:13:34 EST Article-I.D.: desint.288 Posted: Thu Jan 3 06:13:34 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 5-Jan-85 02:14:52 EST References: <6779@brl-tgr.ARPA> <2114@umcp-cs.UUCP> <1276@orca.UUCP> Organization: his home computer, Manhattan Beach, CA Lines: 50 Xref: watmath net.unix-wizards:11347 net.legal:1195 In article <1276@orca.UUCP> andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) writes: >> "I have heard the claim (and it makes sense to me) that SOURCE >> code put out by yacc is proprietary, since it contains >> /usr/lib/yaccpar. > >In 1982, it was the official legal position of AT&T that object code >from yacc is proprietary. Mind you, I'm not volunteering to be a test case, but my layman's legal opinion is that AT&T cannot claim ownership of yaccpar, /usr/include/*, /bin/lint and /bin/spell, and anything else that you can 'cat' at will. My reasoning is as follows: (1) AT&T has traditionally used trade secret law to protect UNIX. All UNIX licenses include a requirement that anyone given access to the source of UNIX sign a nondisclosure agreement. (2) AT&T has never tried to claim a copyright on the source code of UNIX. This is keeping with the best legal advice of the late 70's, which said that copyrighting involved publishing which is antithetical to keeping something secret. There are copyrights on AT&T's *printed* documentation, but there are none in the source code. Nor are there any in /usr/lib/yaccpar (I just looked). My /usr/include stuff has copyrights from UniSoft, but none from AT&T. Since all of this stuff has been around for over 1 year, I conclude that it is now in the public domain (from a copyright point of view). (3) Since /usr/lib/yaccpar is not copyrighted and is not patented, AT&T's only legal protection is trade secret law. But the most basic element of that law is that the information must be kept *secret* by restrictions and contractual agreements. Over the years, thousands of unprivileged users have been given unrestricted access to /usr/include and all other cat-able files. So where is the secret? Thus, AT&T would seem to have no legal recourse against people who use publicly-readable files. In fact, trade secret law doesn't prohibit reverse engineering, either. I have seen a lot of recent contracts that explicitly prohibit disassembling the code involved. Since at least the older AT&T contracts do not cover this possibility, it is probably also legal to disassemble any binary that has world read permissions unless you are covered by a more recent contract. This is not to be construed as advice to go blithely stealing AT&T code just because it's in /usr/include. I would at least check with a real lawyer first. But I am eagerly awaiting the first test case. -- Geoff Kuenning ...!ihnp4!trwrb!desint!geoff