Path: utzoo!utgpu!water!watmath!clyde!att!mtunx!lzaz!lznv!psc From: psc@lznv.ATT.COM (Paul S. R. Chisholm) Newsgroups: comp.sys.ibm.pc Subject: Posting UNIX(R) system source (was: Vi for the PC/XT) Summary: Posting UNIX system source is not a good thing to do Message-ID: <1382@lznv.ATT.COM> Date: 22 Jun 88 04:42:39 GMT References: <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu> Distribution: comp Organization: AT&T Lines: 52 < If you lined all the news readers up end-to-end, they'd be easier to shoot. > In article <4943@watcgl.waterloo.edu>, nnpeterson@watcgl.waterloo.edu (Neil N. Peterson) writes: > Has anyone out there ported the unix source for Vi (posted a short while ago) > to the IBM PC/XT? The source to the vi screen editor is copywritten material. AT&T licenses this source code to various companies and universities, but this license does *not* allow further distribution. Anyone posting or otherwise giving the source to anyone not covered by their organization's license is in a lot of trouble personally, and has just gotten his or her organization into a lot of trouble. Ditto for anyone who takes the source, ports it to another environment, and distributes the result without working things out with AT&T. < ENTER DISCLAIMER MODE > It's my understanding that Custom Software Systems' PC/VI was a port from AT&T source code. They were passing off AT&T's program as if it were their own. The disagreement between CSS and AT&T was based on license and copyright violation, *not* look and feel. I believe that Mortice Kern Systems' MKS/VI is a reimplementation, not a port. AT&T has taken no stand on this; but then, taking no stand is taking a stand, too, right? Look, there are people who think that all software should be freely distributed. They're acting responsibly on that belief (writing lots of potentially useful software, with the only restriction being you can't restrict further distribution). Then there are people who think that software should be a business you can make a profit off of. They provide value for the money, or they don't last in the marketplace. AT&T is in this category. AT&T has put lots of resources into the UNIX operating system, and is putting even more in now. As a result, AT&T (by the current laws in effect) deserves compensation for their effort. Then there are people who think that software should be distributed freely (especially to themselves), no matter who developed it or has legal rights to it. I have nothing polite to say about such people. Yes, at one point, the Regents of the University of California had the rights to the vi source code. One, they don't any longer, for whatever reason. Two, would you really feel better ripping off UC? < LEAVE DISCLAIMER MODE > -Paul S. R. Chisholm, {ihnp4,cbosgd,allegra,rutgers}!mtune!lznv!psc AT&T Mail !psrchisholm, Internet psc@lznv.att.com I'm not speaking for my employer, I'm just speaking my mind. Some of the above opinions reflect those of my employer. UNIX(R) is a registered trademark of AT&T.