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