Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ulysses.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!smb From: smb@ulysses.UUCP (Steven Bellovin) Newsgroups: net.unix-wizards Subject: Re: software ethics Message-ID: <10007@ulysses.UUCP> Date: Tue, 5-Mar-85 15:49:47 EST Article-I.D.: ulysses.10007 Posted: Tue Mar 5 15:49:47 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 6-Mar-85 04:47:56 EST References: <8893@brl-tgr.ARPA> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 82 It would help if people were a bit more careful about using phrases like "trade secret". I'm sure a lawyer can do better, but let me try to define some relevant terms: trade secret -- some knowledge that is truly kept secret by the owner, for commercial gain. An example is the formula for Coca Cola(R). It is *legal* to attempt to deduce a trade secret by reverse engineering, and to use this knowledge commercially. Thus, if I buy a computer and find all the secret ROM entry points by disassembling a readout, I can write programs to use them. I can also use the algorithms contained therein if they are not otherwise protected. patent -- a limited-term right to use an original invention, in exchange for publication of the patent. Because of the limited duration, and because essential information must be disclosed, many companies choose not to patent some items -- again, Coca Cola is a good example. (Btw, the patent on Valium expired last week....) copyright -- a very general sort of protection, applicable to a wide class of works, including computer programs and (now) ROM masks. Copyright vests in the creator of a work by virtue of the act of creation; however, an appropriate notice must be affixed at time of publication or the work reverts to the public domain. Copyrighted works need not be published to retain their protection; I've even seen some programs with explicit notices describing the file as an unpublished, copyrighted work. If I write a program on my home computer, and you break in and steal it, I can sue you for copyright infringement. Derivative works are also protected. That is, if you write a book, no one can make a movie of that book withou your consent. Copyrights expire, too, but after a much longer period of time -- I believe that current (U.S.) law specifies the life of the author plus 50 years. Additionally, copyrights can be renewed under certain conditions. contract protection -- in general, the owner of any object can convey, under any sorts of terms, more or less limited rights to use that object. Most software falls in this category, combined with copyright protection to establish ownership. That is, AT&T Technologies (formerly known as Wester Electric) *owns* the set of programs we know as UNIX. In return for some consideration (i.e., large quantities of bucks), they'll sign a contract giving you certain specified rights to use their software. Now -- algorithms are in general not eligible for any of these forms of protection except trade secret. (I assume that one can license a trade secret, but I'm not certain of that.) I just don't know what class a protocol falls in. If protocols are in the same category as algorithms, then Lauren could *probably* look at some (copyrighted, licensed) UNIX code to understand it, then sit down and write his own version. (Note: before you do this, please remember again that I'm *not* a lawyer.) On the other hand, he might have to prove to some big hairy lawyer that his code is not derivative from the protected code. That can make for expensive lawsuits, and AT&T has lots of money and lots of lawyers... And of course, whatever source license he's working under might contain some restrictive covenants that would bar such use -- remember that the UNIX source code is someone's property, and you can only use it with their permission. I don't know what UNIX licenses say today; I do know that 5 years ago, an educational license prohibited using UNIX source code in the classroom. You don't like this, you don't think it's right? Well, what do you do about other property laws you don't think are right? It's really the same thing; the only question at issue here is what is the definition of property. If you believe in the concept of private property (and if you don't, please reply to net.politics....), I suggest that you lobby to have your own definitions accepted instead by Congress. Personally, I do accept the concept of intangible property, including intellectual property; given that, I admire Lauren for declining to steal someone else's property. --Steve Bellovin ulysses!smb P.S. The opinions expressed herein are *mine* and mine alone, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of AT&T Bell Laboratories, its lawyers, etc. And I decline to accept any responsibility for any actions anyone takes based on my understanding of the law.