Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!husc6!mailrus!ames!umd5!uflorida!novavax!hcx1!cliff From: cliff@hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM Newsgroups: comp.unix.wizards Subject: Re: "Open" Software Foundation: GNU Message-ID: <48300012@hcx1> Date: 24 Jun 88 14:36:00 GMT References: <1144@mcgill-vision.UUCP> Lines: 36 Nf-ID: #R:mcgill-vision.UUCP:1144:hcx1:48300012:000:1604 Nf-From: hcx1.SSD.HARRIS.COM!cliff Jun 24 10:36:00 1988 idall@augean.UUCP writes: > Is the gcc licence agreement more restrictive than commercial (say AT&T > for example) compiler licences. On my system all the include files > have AT&T Copyright notices on them. My (binary only) licence doesn't > say anything about exemptions for libraries or include files. Arguably > giving/selling a program compiled on my system is redistributing stuff > that my licence forbids. It would have major ramifications for the > whole industry if anyone tried to enforce such an interpretation. My Schedule for AT&T Unix System V, Release 3.0 licensing fees says: (v) Use of any portion of [UNIX] in deriving a SUBLICENED PRODUCT will require payment of the full fee for that extansion except as listed below: - Routines from the files in usr/src/lib whose pathnames end in .o or .a may be included in the object-code format in customer developed applications software without payment of a sub-licensing fee to AT&T. - Routines in directories usr/src/head may be used to interface to routine in usr/src/lib whose pathname end in .o or .a or files in usr/lib whose pathnames end in .a without payment of a sublicensing fee to AT&T. It sounds to me as though AT&T isn't such a bad guy after all. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Cliff Van Dyke cliff@ssd.harris.com Harris Computer System cliff%ssd.harris.com@eddie.mit.edu 2101 W. Cypress Creek Rd. ...!{mit-eddie,uunet,novavax}!hcx1!cliff Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33309-1892 Tel: (305) 974-1700