Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!pacbell!lll-tis!helios.ee.lbl.gov!pasteur!ic!rwood From: rwood@ic.uucp (Richard Wood - DEC software) Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: SysV rel3 license Summary: not all licenses are created equal Keywords: OSF, SysV Message-ID: <3738@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu> Date: 2 Jun 88 06:00:21 GMT References: <859@fig.bbn.com> <7989@brl-smoke.ARPA> Sender: news@pasteur.Berkeley.Edu Reply-To: rwood@ic.UUCP (Richard Wood - DEC software) Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation, Software Services Lines: 59 In article <7989@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes: >I have the disadvantage of having had to deal directly with AT&T >licensing myself. I suppose that disqualifies me. Ok, then, at >least READ the license/schedule rather than parroting what other >people misstate about it. As I understand it, the licensing agreements are somewhat negotiable on each contract. Although I would guess that the majority of licenses are mostly identical, it probably doesn't mean they are all the same. I doubt that you've seen the Terms and Conditions that AT&T imposed before DEC, IBM, Apollo or HP, for instance. I've even heard rumor that the content of the license is subject to a non-disclosure agreement. Is this true, and if so: why? One major change that occurred between Release 2 and 3 is the renewal option on the contract. Many of the pre-3 contracts were perpetual. I know IBM and DEC received these for Ultrix and AIX; thus DEC or IBM can continue to sell products based on their current offerings (or anything up to and including SVr2) without renegotiating. On the other hand, for Release 3, AT&T is insisting on periodic renewal. That would mean that AT&T, at the time of renewal, could yank the licensee's right to sell any software based on (or derived from) that version. Let's pose a little scenario here: DEC signs the SysVr3 agreement, and a six months later introduces a product based on it that has some added feature or gimmick that some huge customer is drooling over. AT&T realizes they could duplicate the function in a few months, but how can they hold DEC back? Oh: simple! Six months later, simply revoke the license. DEC signed the contract, after all, right? My personal opinion is that AT&T wouldn't do such a thing: it would be silly in today's legalistic society. On the other hand, I also don't think DEC's lawyers would ever approve such a contract in the first place. But that's what's in the contract, and is one of the prime reasons that DEC (et al?) refuse to license SysVr3. =========================================================================== Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. AIX is a trademark of IBM. Ultrix is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should go without saying that I'm not speaking as an official representative of DEC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood|Software Services, San Francisco|Digital Equipment Corporation =========================================================================== =========================================================================== Unix is a registered trademark of AT&T. AIX is a trademark of IBM. Ultrix is a trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- It should go without saying that I'm not speaking as an official representative of DEC --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Richard Wood|Software Services, San Francisco|Digital Equipment Corporation ===========================================================================