Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site Shasta.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!allegra!mit-eddie!genrad!decvax!decwrl!Shasta!linton
From: linton@Shasta.ARPA
Newsgroups: net.emacs
Subject: dbx distribution revisited
Message-ID: <6447@Shasta.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 24-Jun-85 23:31:01 EDT
Article-I.D.: Shasta.6447
Posted: Mon Jun 24 23:31:01 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 26-Jun-85 06:32:58 EDT
References: <2355@topaz.ARPA>
Organization: Stanford University
Lines: 43


    I should clarify my response to Stallman's message about dbx distribution.
I should also expand on my perspective on the legal domain of dbx source.

I have written dbx almost entirely from scratch.  There were a couple
of places where I looked at adb source to figure how things were done
(e.g., read a coredump), and one place (instruction disassembling)
where I started with several hundred lines of adb code and modified them
to work with dbx.  The modifications included a substantial style change, as
well as a few changes to type names and control flow.  The resulting source
hardly resembles the adb code.

Since I neither understand nor particularly care about the legal issues
involved, I have avoided worrying about whether this history makes dbx
dependent on an AT&T license.  My opinion is that my opinion on this issue
doesn't matter, and if you care you should consult a lawyer.

Now, other people are interested in whether dbx is AT&T dependent, and
when I tell them the history they come to their own conclusions.  I also
tell them what I said above, that my opinion is they should get a lawyer's
opinion (unless they decide it is AT&T dependent, which is certainly safe).

When I told Stallman, he interpreted it to mean that dbx was not AT&T
dependent, and that it could thus be freely distributed.  That is certainly
his prerogative, and I did not mean to say that he is wrong.  In fact,
I would be glad if he is right.

The reason I objected to his first message is that I thought he made it
sound like I wrote dbx completely independent of AT&T code and that
I had said that dbx was public domain.  I know that he does not
believe either of these, and he meant to state his interpretation
of the facts that I relayed to him.  Unfortunately, the difference
between  and 
was not clear.

Finally, I want to emphasize that I did NOT mean to say that Stallman
is wrong in his interpretations, or that he purposely misrepresented
my opinion.  I understand how he reached his conclusions, and they
are certainly reasonable.  Do not take my refusal to support them
as disagreement -- I simply don't have the expertise or interest to
come to my own conclusions.

	Mark