|
|
| $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by AT&T |
 |
|
Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 03:43 PM EST
|
Here is August 1985 $ echo newsletter Novell referred to and attached to its February
6, 2004 letter to SCO. The important information conveyed by this newsletter was a
change in the Software Agreement, specifically:
"Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees
that AT&T will claim no ownership in the software that they
developed -- only the portion of the software developed by AT&T."
I also note these:
"Section 2.01(a) - First sentence revised to clarify licensee's
obligations to satisfy U.S. Government export requirements."
"Section 3.02 - Language deleted which allowed the termination
of the agreement by AT&T."
The original PDF is available from Novell's web site:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/legal.html
It is the second to last on the list, the second attachment to the Sequent letter of
February 6:
http://www.novell.com/licensing/indemnity/pdf/08_1985_echo.pdf/
Thanks, again, to Gerard ter Beke for transcribing.
UPDATE: Frank Hayes has a report on what it means:
http://www.linuxinsider.com/perl/story/32951.html
*******************************************************************
AUGUST 1985
In this issue:
* UNIX Expo 85
New Product Announcements
* MRD For UNIX System V, DWB
Business Issues
* Trademarks
* Software Licenses
* Changes To Licensing Agreements
Related AT&T Computer Announcements
* AT&T Announces New Hardware, Software Products
Technical Information
* UNIX Software Advisor Column
AT&T
$ echo
$ echo is published for UNIX System V licensees by
AT&T Software Sales and Licensing.
AT&T
P.O. Box 25000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
1-800-828-UNIX
$ echo Newsletter
A message from the Editor:
$ echo is the newsletter published by the AT&T Software Sales and Licensing
organization for licensees of UNIX TM System V.
Licensees for UNIX Software products and services are located throughout
the world. Having a customer network this large poses a special problem
in establishing effective communication lines. This newsletter is designed to make
our organization more responsive to our customers' needs through a structured
information dissemination medium.
The purpose of $ echo is to reach all UNIX System V licensees through one
defined medium. It serves as a consistent channel of communication to our
licensees and keeps them abreast of any product announcements, policy
changes, company business and pricing structures.
Subscriptions may be purchased through the Software Sales and Licensing
organization.
Subscription Rate - $87 per year
Make checks payable to AT&T and send orders to:
$ echo Subscriptions
AT&T Software Sales and Licensing
P.O. Box 25000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
Any comments or questions regarding $ echo should be addressed to The
Editor, $ echo, AT&T, Software Sales and Licensing. P.O. Box 25000,
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420. Telephone: 1 -800-828-UNIX.
Other AT&T Software Sales Offices:
UNIX PACIFIC
Nippon Press Center Bldg., 6th Floor
2-1, Uchisaiwai-cho. 2-chome
Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo 100 Japan
011-81-3-593-3301
AT&T CANADA
1500 Don Mills Road, Ste. 500
Don Mills, Ontario
Canada M3B 3K4
(416) 449-4300
AT&T Software Sales and Licensing
1090 East Duane
Sunnyvale, California 94086
(408) 746-5011
UNIX Europe Limited
27A Carlton Drive
London, England SW15
011-44-785-6972
SOFTWARE SALES AND LICENSING MOVES TO AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Effective July 1, 1985, Software Sales and Licensing, the organization responsible
for licensing UNIX TM operating systems and related software, was transferred
from AT&T Technologies to AT&T Information Systems.
Accordingly, payments made under current software and/or sublicensing
agreements should henceforth be made payable to AT&T Information Systems
Inc. and sent to:
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
P.O. Box 65080
Charlotte, North Carolina 28265
Correspondence regarding agreements should be sent to:
AT&T INFORMATION SYSTEMS
Software Sales and Licensing Organization
P.O. Box 25000
Greensboro, North Carolina 27420
The telephone number has remained the same: 1-800-828-UNIX. Customers
are urged to call if they have questions.
----------------------------------------------
COME TO NEW YORK
AT&T will be exhibiting its hardware and software products at the UNIX
Expo in New York City September 18-20. Customers are encouraged to
stop by and get a "hands-on" demonstration of the UNIX PC.
AT&T will be showing the PC interface which allows non-UNIX PCs to
talk with AT&T 3B2s. AT&T will have the 3B2-400 and 3B2-300 XM all up
and running with application software.
Bill O'Shea, Executive Director, Software Systems, will deliver the keynote
address Wednesday, September 18, at 10:00 a.m.
Why not arrange to hear Bill O'Shea's talk Wednesday, visit the show floor,
and then attend one of AT&T's 20 tutorials. Titles range from "UNIX
Systems in an IBM Environment" to "using UNIX as a Sales Tool," and of
course the standards such as "Overview of UNIX Systems Internals."
AT&T hopes to see you there.
----------------------------------------------
NEW PRODUCT ANNOUNCEMENTS
----------------------------------------------
MRD OFFERED FOR UNIX SYSTEM V, DWB
Effective August 1 AT&T will offer Machine Readable Documentation
(MRD} for two source code products: UNIX System V, Release 2.0
Versions 1 & 2 and UNIX DOCUMENTER'S WORKBENCH TM Release 1.0
The MRDs will be offered as add-on products fur customers having a
software source license for the corresponding software products. This
will give them the ability to produce hardcopy and on-line documents
for internal use or for shipment with their product.
The text files and formatting macros provided with the MRD products are
structured to produce documentation identical to the hardcopy documents
shipped with the software products.
The MRD products are designed to meet specific needs of our OEM/VAR
source licensees. They are meant to be the source for the documents these
customers require for internal use as well as for customized documents for
distribution.
Through a sublicensing arrangement the MRDs, either in original form or
as modified by the license, may also be passed on to authorized copiers or
distributors for final printing and distribution.
Prices for the MRD products are as follows:
UNIX System V, Release 2.0. DWB
First CPU $10,000 $ 4,000
Additional CPU 400 400
Update Fee 2,500 -
Sublicensing Fee 25,000 10,000
Per Copy Fee 7,500 3,000
----------------------------------------------
BUSINESS ISSUES
----------------------------------------------
UNIX SYSTEM CENTRAL TO AT&T COMPUTER STRATEGY
As a part of AT&T's June 24 anouncements, AT&T outlined its computer
strategy which has the UNIX System as a central element. Following is a
summary of the key points made in the strategy statement.
AT&T faces unique challenges as it traverses the unmapped, fiercely competitive,
and rapidly changing world of information movement and management.
Succeeding in that world requires a clear strategy, a blueprint that describes
in detail the steps we must take to get to where we want to go.
Customers have consistently said that technology itself is less important
than how it is used in the customer's individual situation. They have said,
in effect, that it is more important to do the right thing than to simply do
things right.
Computer Systems has developed a strategy to ensure that AT&T does the
right thing. That strategy has three guiding principles:
* To develop and provide systems based on communications and networking.
One of AT&T's proven strengths is its ability to make products that communicate
efficiently and easily with each other and -- more importantly -- with the people
who use them.
The company is also known for its ability to link highly complex technologies
into highly efficient networks.
Computer Systems believes that AT&T's heritage of communications and
networking is an invaluable legacy. It gives AT&T the unique ability to deliver
integrated, complete solutions to customersí information movement and
management problems.
* To support existing standards. This is a recognition that there are technical
and other standards in the computer business -- some official, some de
facto -- that must be adhered to if AT&T is going to win the game. To do
otherwise serves neither the customers' interests nor our own.
* To protect the customer's investment. The company recognizes that customers
have huge investments in hardware, software, and the training required for both.
Customers are not about to throw it all away simply because AT&T says it has
something better. AT&T will introduce them to better technology, but in a way
that does not force them to scrap what they already have.
Software
A critical element in all AT&T products is software. The AT&T Computer Software
Guide describes approximately 500 software packages in the current edition that
run on our computers. These represent only a small portion of the thousands of
programs that run on AT&T-compatibles. The items included in the Guide are only
those AT&T has evaluated and tested.
AT&T constantly seeks out high-quality applications software packages targeted
to specific customer sets. This enables it to offer not only excellent computer
products, but the software that enables those products to meet customers'
specific needs.
In addition, the UNIX system will continue to be central to AT&T software strategy.
It has an innate ability to facilitate communications among computers. And, the
UNIX system is portable. A customer can easily move expensive software applications
from one machine based on the UNIX System to another machine -- regardless of
either machine's manufacturer.
The alternative would be for the customer to scrap that software, and build
replacements from the ground up.
The UNIX system is the only commercially available operating system that
serves the entire range of romp computers -- from minis to mainframes.
It is also very flexible, with its multi-user, multi-tasking capability and civilized
user interface
The UNIX system is a key reason why AT&T is ìthe right choice in computers.
USE OF THE TRADEMARK UNIX
UNIX is an unregistered trademark of AT&T, used to identify its particular brand
of software. The trademark is used in conjunction with several timesharing operating
systems developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories and licensed by AT&T, and might be
used in the future on other kinds of software and products.
A trademark identifies the source of a product. Some trademark owners license
their trademarks for use by others. A product marked with such a trademark might
come from either the trademark owner or from one of its licensees. However, it is
AT&T's policy not to license parties outside the company to use the trademark UNIX
to identify their products. There are specific provisions in our software agreements for
UNIX operating systems on this point.
Notwithstanding this policy, anyone may use the trademark UNIX to refer to the
UNIX operating systems developed at AT&T Bell Laboratories. However, to protect
AT&T's interest in the trademark, we must ask that others use the trademark correctly.
Following are several comments on correct and incorrect use of the trademark. The
comments are organized in outline form for convenient reference.
A. Trademark Appearance
1. The trademark UNIX must always appear in a form that is typographically distinct.
2. The trademark UNIX must be clearly and legibly identified as a trademark of AT&T
at least once in any article, advertisement or document in which the trademark appears,
preferably the first time such trademark is used.
3. The trademark UNIX is an unregistered trademark of AT&T. It is incorrect to use the
symbol TM in connection with the trademark UNIX or to state that UNIX is a registered
trademark or service mark.
B. Outside Parties
1. Parties outside AT&T may not state or imply that they furnish UNIX operating systems
to others and may not use the trademark UNIX in the name of software that they furnish
to others. Even if such parties are licensed by AT&T to use UNIX operating systems or to
furnish object code derived from such operating systems to others, they are not licensed
to use the trademark to identify their product.
2. The trademark UNIX may not be used in the name of a publication, business or other organization (such as a user group).
C. Grammatical Usage
1. The trademark UNIX may not be used as a noun, but must always be used as an
adjective modifying a common noun as in "UNIX operating system."
2. The trademark UNIX must always be used to modify a common name for something
that is a product with which the trademark is used. For example, it is incorrect to refer
to "a UNIX USER," "UNIX terminals" or "UNIX support." Correct usage is "a user of UNIX
operating system," "terminal on a computer running a UNIX operating system" or
"support for UNIX operating system."
A way to check whether usage of the trademark is correct is to mentally insert the
word "Brand" between the trademark and the common name. "UNIX Brand operating
system" sounds reasonable but "UNIX Brand user" does not.
3. The trademark UNIX may not be used in a hyphenated expression such as
"UNIX-based" or "UNIX-like."
4. The trademark UNIX may not be combined with the trademark of another party
unless the independence of the trademark is clear.
D. Official Names
1. Reference to "the UNIX operating system" is inappropriate There are several UNIX
operating systems. For a collective term, use "UNIX operating system," if that is what
is meant.
2. It is inappropriate to use the trademark UNIX in any Label (such as file name,
subroutine call or the like) in any software.
SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS OFFERED BY AT&T
AT&T offers several types of software agreements to commercial, educational,
administrative, and government customers, as well as support agreements to
all customers and sublicensing agreements to commercial and government clients.
These agreements are designed to protect AT&T's tradesecret and proprietary
interests in the technology and both AT&T's and the customer's investment,
The following is a definition and brief description of those agreements.
-- Commercial Software Agreement --
A commercial software agreement grants the rights to use an AT&T software
package for internal business purposes to an organization such as a commercial
entity, a government agency, or an educational institution. The terms include an
obligation to hold the software package in confidence and require payment of a
fee for each central processing unit on which the software is used. The use for
internal business purposes includes uses for research even where a third party
receives preferential access or rights to the fruits of such research.
-- Sublicensing Agreement --
A sublicensing agreement grants the rights to make binary copies of the
sublicensed products and to furnish copies, either directly or through distributors,
to customers for internal business purposes.
-- Educational Software Agreement --
An educational software agreement grants the rights to use an AT&T software
package for academic and educational purposes to a non-profit, post-secondary,
educational institution having an ongoing teaching and degree-granting program
in compliance with governmental regulations. The terms include an obligation to
hold the software package in confidence. They also require payment of a service
charge and require identification of usage on each central processing unit on which
the software is used. Uses for academic and educational purposes are uses directly
related to a teaching or degree granting program or uses for student or faculty
research. All other uses, such as commercial uses, administrative uses, or uses for
research where a third party receives rights or preferential access to the fruits of
such research, are not permitted.
-- Administrative Software Agreement --
An administrative software agreement grants the rights to use an AT&T software
package for administrative purposes to a non-profit, post-secondary, educational
institution having an ongoing teaching and degree-granting program in compliance
with governmental regulations. The terms include an obligation to hold the software
package in confidence. They require payment of a fee (lower than the fee applicable
under a commercial software agreement) for each central processing unit on which
the software package is used. Use for administrative purposes includes uses directly
related to the administration and operation of the educational institution, but excludes
commercial uses or uses for research where a third party receives preferential access
or rights to the fruits of such research.
-- Government Software Agreement --
A government software agreement is similar in terms to the commercial software
agreement which grants the rights to use an AT&T software package for internal business
purposes to an agency of the U.S. government. The terms include an obligation to hold the software package in confidence and require payment of a fee for each central processing
unit on which the software is used.
-- Support Agreement --
A support agreement grants the right to request maintenance services from AT&T.
AT&T MAKES CHANGES TO SOFTWARE AGREEMENTS
As discussed in the OEM/VAR Seminar in March, AT&T has made several significant
changes to the software agreements. In the interest of keeping licensees up to date,
the changes are listed here. Contact your Account Executive for information or
specimen copies.
Changes To The Software Agreement
First page of agreement: change of name, corporate address and state of incorporation.
Previous agreement had 6 pages, now 8 pages.
Section 1.04 - Last sentence added to note that AT&T's software products available
under this license agreement may contain material prepared by other developers.
Section 2.01 - The last sentence was added to assure licensees that AT&T will claim
no ownership in the software that they developed -- only the portion of the software
developed by AT&T.
Section 2.02 . This section was added to permit the licensee to allow its contractors
to use the SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to regulations in Section 2.02 of the agreement.
This section eliminates the need for the contractor's letters issued in the past.
Section 2.03 - Previously 2.02. No change.
Section 2.04 - Previously 2.03. -- "If required" was added to the last sentence. In the
past, all Supplements were required to be signed by licensee as well as AT&T. Certain
Supplements are now signed by AT&T only.
Section 2.05 - Previously 2.04. No change.
Section 2.06 - Previously 2.05. This section was changed to reflect the inclusion of
contractor provisions in the software agreement as well as any special provisions
that might be made between AT&T and licensee.
Section 4.01 - The last sentence was added to note that licensees are
responsible for obtaining the necessary export licenses.
Section 5.03 - The section referenced was changed from Section 7.11(a) to
Section 7.10(a).
Section 6.05 - Section reference in last sentence changed from Section 2.03
to Section 2.04.
Section 7.01 - No Change. Previously 7.02. Section 7.01 from previous
agreement deleted from this agreement.
Section 7.02 - Previously 7.03. This section was changed to give a 90-day
warranty on magnetic medium, and references materials provided by other
developers.
Section 7.03 - Previously 7.04. This section was revised to clarify use of
trademarks.
Section 7.04 Previously 7.05. First sentence changed to include "any other
developer".
Section 7.05(a) - Previously 7.06(a). This section was changed to include
contractors.
Section 7.05(b) - Previously 7.06(b). This section was changed to include
instruction for verification of a recipient's license status. This information
was previously conveyed by letter.
Section 7.06 - Previously 7.07. Section reference changed from Section
7.06(a) to Section 7.05(a).
Section 7.07 - Previously 7.08. The last sentence was added to note that instructions
appearing in or on the Software Product may also appear in the Schedules for those
products. Reference section changed from Section 7.06(b) to Section 7.05(b).
Section 7.08 - Previously 7.09. No change.
Section 7.09 - Previously 7.10. No change.
Section 7.10 - Previously 7.11 Company name change only.
Section 7.11 - Previously 7.12. No change.
Section 7.12 - Previously 7.13. No change.
Changes To The Sublicensing Agreement
Page 1 - Name change only.
Section 2.01(a) - First sentence revised to clarify licensee's obligations to satisfy U.S.
Government export requirements.
Section 2.02 - Language added to clarify responsibilities of licensee when distributing
sublicensed products.
Section 2.04 - Revised to include Distributor.
Section 2.05(b) - Language added to include contractors provisions -- rights and
obligations under the agreement.
Sec ion 2.08(a) - Language added to state that instructions may appear in Schedules
for certain Software Products.
Section 2.09 - Previously 2.10. (Section 2.09 from previous agreement deleted) No
change.
Section 3.01- "by AT&T-IS" added to last sentence.
Section 3.02 - Language deleted which allowed the termination of the agreement
by AT&T.
Section 4.01(a) - This section was changed to note the procedure for payment
of initial per-copy sublicensing fees.
Section 4.01(b) - "amounts" changed to "a fee".
Section 5.02(a) - Changed to replace 30-day advance notice to the actual time
the licensee begins furnishing copies of a sublicensed product to customers.
Section 5.03 - Changed to show a late payment increase from 1% to 3%.
Section 6.02(a) - Name change.
Section 6.02(b) - Name and organization changed.
Section 6.03 - Previously 6.04. (Section 6.03 from previous agreement deleted.)
Section 6.04 - Previously 6.05. No change.
-----------------------------------------------
RELATED AT&T COMPUTER ANNOUNCEMENTS
-----------------------------------------------
AT&T ANNOUNCES NEW HARDWARE, SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
Continuing its move into the computer market, AT&T announced June 24
more than 70 new products that enable businesses to interconnect work groups
to form integrated data networks and then link those networks to centralized
data bases on mainframe computers.
AT&T's Computer Systems President James Edwards said that the new products
"form a communications mosaic that connects data and voice into networks that
run from centralized data processing centers down through departments to desktops.
This end-to-end connectivity of a company's computers enables customers to be
more productive and efficient as they build bridges among their islands of office
automation."
The key product groups AT&T announced are:
* A group of hardware and software products that enable customers to connect
their PCs, workstations, and minicomputers to their mainframes easily and
economically. When coupled with other AT&T network offerings such as
DATAPHONE II Network Management System, these new capabilities give
customers a wide range of networking and communications power.
* Two new members of its 3B family of computers -- the 3B2/400, a super
microcomputer for up to 25 simultaneous Users, and the 3B15, a super
minicomputer that supports up to 60 simultaneous users, both with floating
point capability. In addition, there are major enhancements to AT&T's existing
machines, the 3B2/3OO and the 3B5, and a more than 20 percent price
reduction on the 3B2/300. This expands the 3B product family and provides
AT&T customers with a logical, cost-effective path as their needs grow
* Applications software designed especially for specific customers such as
accountants and mortage companies. These packages provide savings for
customers who, until now, had to write their own software or do without.
* Software that enables customers to develop applications on their mainframes,
and then use those applications on their 3B systems at the department or work
group level.
Under the umbrella of Integrated Service Management, AT&T will offer customers
a range of customized service options including technical consulting, project
implementation and management and operations services. In addition, the company
has opened six new Customer Programming Service Centers to develop custom
software.
Standard service offerings range from 24-hour-a-day maintenance hotline
support, backed up by locally-developed systems technicians, to a national
parts sales center from which do-it-yourself customers can order equipment
modules and parts for overnight shipment.
Edwards emphasized that the announcements are an integrated extension
of the workstation products and systems -- the AT&T UNIX PC, the enhanced
AT&T PC 6300, and the AT&T STARLAN Network -- introduced just three
months ago. "We are delivering on our commitments to our customers. We
are delivering... on our promise of compatibility and connectivity... on our
commitment to protect our customers' investment -- on our pledge of
outstanding service," he declared.
Applications Software
AT&T's UNIX System V operating system, which runs on the AT&T 3B computer
family, has a library of applications software that is growing steadily. The list
includes vertical packages to fill the special needs of a particular industry or a
specific type of business; horizontal packages such as spreadsheets and word
processing programs; and a comprehensive array of compilers, utilities and
communications software.
Much of this UNIX software is developed by Independent Software Vendors (ISVs)
and Value Added Resellers (VARs).
The software developed by ISVs and VARs, as well as software developed by AT&T,
is listed in the recently issued AT&T Computer Software Guide (Reston Publishing,
$19.95) which is available at computer and software speciality stores, bookstores,
educational institutions and libraries.
The software for the 3B Computer family includes:
VERTICAL INDUSTRY SOFTWARE
* AT&T Supply Link (3B2)
* AT&T Mortgage Line (3B2)
* AT&T Gift Registry (3B2)
* AT&T GLOWS and AT&T GLOWS PM (3B2)
PROGRAMMING AND DEVELOPMENT
* UX-Basic (3B2, 3B5)
* RM-COBOL (3B2, 3B5)
* LEVEL II COBOL (3B2, 3B5)
ACCOUNTING
* AT&T Business Accounting System (3B2, 3B5)
* AT&T Communications Management Control System (3B5)
DATABASES
* dBASE II (3B2, 3B5)
* AT&T INGRES (3B5)
* AT&T INGRES/CS (3B2)
* File-it! (3B2, 3B5)
* INFORMIX (3B2, 3B5)
* C-ISAM (3B2, 3B5)
OFFICE PRODUCTIVITY
* Microsoft Word (3B2, 3B5)
* CrystalWriter (3B2, 3B5)
* EDIX/WORDIX (3B2, 3B5)
* Multiplan (3B2, 3B5)
* UltraCalc (3B2, 3B5)
OPERATING SYSTEMS
* AT&T V-VM (3B2, 3B5)
Customers may contact their AT&T Account Executive for detailed information
on pricing and availability.
-----------------------------------------------
TECHNICAL INFORMATION
-----------------------------------------------
THE UNIX SOFTWARE ADVISOR
Question: The Information on electronic mail to my Software Sales Account Executive
was incomplete in the last issue of $ echo. Would you please supply the additional
Information?
Answer: We apologize for our error. Here is the correct electronic mail address.
The "uucp" information for the gateway computer is:
attunix Any ACU 1200 l-201-522-6805
login:--login: attunix
After this information is added to your L.sys. file, you can send mail to your AE
using the following command:
mail attunix!gcss20! - - - - -
(The blank spaces are for the recipient's login.)
Question: Are the new prices for COMMKITT TM Software Basic Networking Utilities
now available?
Answer: Yes. Here is a summary of those prices.
Commercial Educational Administrative
First $3,000 $ 400 $l,000
Addíl 1,000 400 1,000
Sublicensing: 0
Per Copy Sublicensing:
Max Users 2 8 16 32 64 >64
Price $20 $50 $75 $100 $125 S150
Question: Where may customers get Information on the UNIX PC and the
software to run on it?
Answer: Customers may call 1-800-247-1212 for information on the UNIX
PC and its software. This is also the number for inquires about the AT&T 3B
Computer Products.
Question: What steps will AT&T take to make a driver development kit available?
Answer: We believe the correct approach is to give support to our commercial
source licensees to allow them to build and deliver System V driver writing kits
for their products. We do not believe AT&T should undertake the task of writing
and maintaining these tools, because they are extremely machine-dependent,
and the necessary expertise resides with each vendor.
Specific steps that we are taking are as follows;
1. We will grant permission to our source licensees to develop and distribute
the source code for sample device drivers for their products. These drivers will
not necessarily be in operational form, but will serve as models that could be
modified or extended for actual use.
2. We are immediately lifting any restrictions that might exist on the ability of
our source licensees to distribute certain files listed below as part of a binary
distribution. These files may be required on a binary system to configure and
install new drivers.
/usr/src/uts/uts.mk
/usr/src/uts/MI/MI.mk
/usr/src/uts/MI/lib?
/usr/src/uts/MI/ASM.o
/usr/src/uLs/MI/DATA*
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/cf.mk
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/Makefile
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/name.c
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/linesw.c
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/DFILE
/usr/src/uts/MI/cf/DATA*
/usr/src/uts/MI/os/os.mk
/usr/src/uts/MI/io/io.mk
/usr/src/uts/MI/ml/ml.mk
/usr/src/M1/pwb/pwb.mk
(Our schedules relating to UNIX System V have been modified to reflect
these changes.]
UNIX TM Software Product Line
UNIX Systems
UNIX System V, Release 2.0 AT&T 3B20 Version 4
UNIX System V, Release 2.0 VAX* 11/780 Version 2
UNIX System V/M68000, Release 1.LO
UNIX System V, Release 2.0 NSC32000 Version 1
UNIX System V, Release 2.0 AT&T 3B5 Version 2
Workbenches
UNIX Writer's Workbench TM Software
UNIX Instructional Workbench TM Software, Release 3.1.
UNIX Documenterës Workbench TM Software
Networking/Communications Software
AT&T 3BNET
COMMKIT TM SOFTWARE HYPERchannel** INTERFACE
COMMKIT TM SOFTWARE SYNCHRONOUS TERMINAL INTERFACE
COMMKIT TM SOFTWARE ETHERNET*** INTERFACE
UNIX System V COMMKIT TM Software Basic Networking Utilities 1.0
Languages and Programming Tools
UNIX System V Basic Interpreter
COBOL Syntax Checker
M68000 C Compilation System
UNIX PASCAL COMPILER
UNIX SYSTEM AT&T 3B2/3B5 C COMPILATION SYSTEM
Other Software
5620 DMD Software Core Package, Release 1.2
5620 DMD Software Development Package, Release 1.2
5620 DMD Software Text Package, Release 1.2
Non-Supported Software
C/370 C Compilation System
Device Independent TROFF
S SOFTWARE
UNIX System V TEXT MANAGER, Release 1.0
UNIX System Toolchest
Machine Readable Documentation
UNIX SYSTEM V
* Trademark of Digital Equipment Corporation
** Trademark of Network Systems Corporation
*** Trademark of XEROX Corporation
AT&T
All Rights Reserved
Printed in USA
8-85
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:03 PM EST |
Looks as if Computerworld is getting the picture.
http://www.computerworld.com/governmenttopics/government/legalissues/story/0,108
01,89342,00.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Whiplash on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST |
Interesting but won't SCOX reiterate the position that they adopted in court
which was:
"Sure IBM _own_ that code but the agreement said that they had to _treat_
that code as if it were part of the SOFTWARE PRODUCT"
Silly arguement I'd think, from a lay-person point of view but IANAL (shoulda
gone to law school!).
Is the question about SCOX definition VS IBMs defintion of derivative works a
matter for the Jury or can a Judge rule?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by - Authored by: bobn on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:38 PM EST
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by - Authored by: Glenn on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:43 PM EST
- Depends on what your definition of "NO" is... - Authored by: Ed L. on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:34 PM EST
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by AT&T - Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:35 PM EST
- Exclusive right - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:10 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:08 PM EST |
http://ir.sco.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=CALD&CIK=1102542&FID=1047469
-04-4069&SID=04-00
BayStar and Royal Bank of Canada sell all their SCO shares, SCO sees a dark
future, SCO has to pay fees for the transaction, Arthur Andersen LLP doesn't
consent to the inclusion by reference of their audit report in the registration
statement and so on!
Yippie!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:15 PM EST
- Clickable URL - Authored by: DBLR on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:28 PM EST
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:33 PM EST
- Indemnification of directors? - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST
- Don't get too excited - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:04 PM EST
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:09 PM EST
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: Walter Dnes on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:40 PM EST
- ...restates and realleges the allegations... - Authored by: jesse on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 09:15 AM EST
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: DeepBlue on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 12:35 PM EST
- New SEC filing says it all! - Authored by: DeepBlue on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:13 PM EST |
$ echo talks about ownership. SCO's position is that SCO does not own copyrights
but has "control rights".
In my mind, one interesting question is what does "ownership" mean in
this context? We are talking about IP: IP does not have a general concept of
ownership. One can own copyrights, patents, trade secrets, but no
"IP".
One could argue that it merely means ownership of copyrights -- and I think this
is what SCO will argue.
To create a general concept of ownerhip of IP, perhaps one could say that it
relates to control of the IP. With this definition, SCO's argument about
"control rights" evaporates.
Just thinking, I would like to read other people's thoughts on this.
---
-----
For a few laughs, see "Simon's Comic Online Source" at
http://scosource.com/index.html[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:20 PM EST |
D. Official Names
1. Reference to "the UNIX
operating system" is inappropriate There are several UNIX
operating systems. For
a collective term, use "UNIX operating system," if that is what
is
meant.
So much for TSG's claim that they own
"the UNIX operating system"!
---
"When I say
something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:22 PM EST |
Oh man this grammar section makes SCO sound too funny now it's time to look
though the Quotes DB and reread inserting "Brand" after UNIX ;). SCO
has controlling rights to UNIX Brand. erm sigh ;)
sorta reminds me of saying "in bed" after you read your fortune from
those lovible cookies ;).
Sigh i miss UCB [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: overshoot on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:26 PM EST |
| Not quite to the heart of SCO's argument.
SCO would argue that although IBM
owns the code that they produce for Unix, SCO holds a lien (or deed
restriction!) on it which restricts what IBM can do with their property.
This
should fit right in with the prevailing view of SCO as being morally comparable
to Homeowners' Associations. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: soronlin on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST |
The second ammended claims says:
67. On January 28, 1986,
AT&T and Sequent (now merged into IBM through a stock acquisition) entered
into certain AT&T UNIX Agreements:
a) Software Agreement Number
SOFT-000321 (“Sequent Software Agreement” attached hereto and incorporated
herein as Exhibit F);
b) Sublicensing Agreement Number SUB-000321A (“Sequent
Sublicensing Agreement” attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit
G).
So the Sequent agreement SOFT-000321 was published shortly
after that edition of $echo. It does not appear to be in Legal Docs. Or am I
mistaken?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:32 PM EST |
The “$echo” article says that they are making changes to the contract, but I'm
not clear if this means new contracts, or an addendum to existing ones.
Also it's not clear to me if an article saying that they are making o going to
make a change has any legal weight. Unless such a change was actually sent to
IBM and signed by IBM and AT&T does a non-contractual publication matter?
It might signify intent, but couldn't SCO say "Sure AT&T might have
MEANT to do this, but Mr. IBM did they actually do this? Can you produce such a
modified clause? If no such clause was offered to you I suggest to the court it
is because you were being specifically enjoined against distribution of
derivatives and modifications. Further I suggest that since you did not seek and
request that change to your contract, you acquiesced to this standard."
I can't quite tell from the documents, if, in fact, IBM's contract was modified.
To my mind AT&T simply saying they're changing things in a general
publication is not legally binding on AT&T or IBM, Such a change can be too
easily repudiated as "Well, the editors misunderstood what legal said"
or "Well, we did intend to do so, but decided against it." Only the
contract language counts, not advertising, even advertising disguised as user
assistance.
Just an amatuer opinion of course.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- I'm not clear on a point - Authored by: Dissent on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:40 PM EST
- I'm not clear on a point - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:13 PM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:21 PM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:59 PM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: Chugiak on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 09:19 PM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: brian on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 10:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:36 PM EST |
I notice that they use the word clarify (or varients), as opposed to,
say, revise or amend.
This say to my non-laywer eyes
that the intent was to state the same
rights in a more explicit way
(and, thus, should apply retroactively to
the licenses they refer to). [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SaveDrury on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:45 PM EST |
and groklaw needs a story submit button.
see your local /. time water for more details.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: RedBarchetta on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:49 PM EST |
Turn out the lights, the party's over.
Who's next, those
Patriot-nimwits suing all the Japanese
high-techs over some silly
micro-processor patent? MS and
it's Palladium? How about that fu**ed up
DMCA?
I don't want to jump the gun, but after reading SCO's SEC
filing for today, I can't help but think, "Turn out the
lights... " [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: arch_dude on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST |
We've been analyzing SCOG's weird theory for about 8 months now. The theory is
that code added by Sequent to Dynix must be kept confidential by contracual
obligation. We all think that this theory is insane, and we have about ten good
refutations.
However, SCOG has an almost completely different theory of derived works that
became clearer in court on 6 Feb.
Consider two original works U and I. We all agree that a new work that is an
intimate comingling of U and I (UI) is a derived work of U. It is also a derived
work of I. SCOG believes that certain portions of early AIX code matches this
definition, and clearly such portion cannot be disclosed without breaching the
contract. So far, so good: no arguments. You could easily look at UI and
determine that it derives from U.
Now comes SCOG's crazy "ladder rung" theory:
IBM continued development on UI to create UI[1], and then UI[2]... each
deriving from the last. By the time we reach UI[N], the original contribution
from U, while still present, is no longer obvious. IBM contributed UI[N] to
Linux and violated the contract.
This is NOT the same theory of derived works at all.
I think it's still crazy. I also think that IBM has contract ammendments that
kill this theory for AIX. I'm less sure about work done by Sequent prior their
aquisition by IBM.
This theory flies in the face of common sense, but IANAL.
Does anyone have a refutation?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SaveDrury on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 05:53 PM EST |
read em and weep, boys...
sorry, but i mention this one because this IS groklaw material.
http://internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3312091
The speculation as to whether Microsoft (Quote, Chart) intends to patent XML
(define) technology is over. Microsoft has been granted United States patent
6,687,897 for "XML script automation."
well, i guess we'll need to come up with something else to use - i wonder when
I'll get charged for my Mac since all my conf files are XML....
hmmm....
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: robert on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:00 PM EST |
http://www.theregister.co.uk/content/53/35541.html
More journalists getting the idea....
""So how do you like that?" writes Novell attorney Joe LaSala in
invisible ink on the latest missive, released by Novell today. (You may need
invisible spectacles to read this portion of the text, but the intent is there
for all to see.)"
:-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST |
Although PJ could have posted just the relevant sections, I'm glad she posted
the whole thing. It's made an old man very happy. In the last issue we were all
able to chuckle about the expensive Emacs licences. In this issue is the
infamous load of cobblers about how to use the sacred unregistered trademark.
Such pomposity about what was then still really just a toy operating system
always caused much hilarity at our Multics site. Who would have thought how
history would turn out?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:37 PM EST |
From the SCO Partner Newsletter (recieved scant seconds ago)...
Their "self description" has changed significantly....
"=================================================================
The SCO Group Legal Information
http://www.thescogroup.com/company/legal
About The SCO Group
The SCO Group (Nasdaq: SCOX) helps millions of customers in more than 82
countries to grow their businesses with UNIX business solutions. Headquartered
in Lindon, Utah, SCO has a worldwide network of more than 11,000 resellers and
4,000 developers. SCO Global Services provides reliable localized support and
services to all partners and customers. For more information on SCO products
and services visit http://www.thescogroup.com."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 06:54 PM EST |
Is that really all there is ?
No comment.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kberrien on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:03 PM EST |
In todays posted filing, at
http://ir.sco.com/EdgarDetail.cfm?CompanyID=CALD&CIK=1102542&FID=1047469
-04-4069&SID=04-00
The section SELLING STOCKHOLDERS.
Somone please explain the sell-out of the Baystar and Royal Bank of Canada held
stock.
Here are my questions.
1. Is this new information not seen in other filings?
2. Is this selling what we'd expect at this time, ie, why they made the intitial
investment, to sell at or about now?
3. I've read something about PIPE deals, that even if the stock were to plummet
tomarrow they would still make money? Free lunch deal?
4. I assume this is part of a declaration to sell, when can they actually?
Ok financial types, get to work. Thanks! This just looks like an interesting
topic, which I TOTALLY don't understand.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Walter Dnes on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:19 PM EST |
Suppose you're Microsoft or the Canopy Group, and you find Open Source to be a
real thorn in your side, how do you kill, or at least weaken/de-stabilize it?
Answer; destroy the GPL. A legal challenge against it would be too obvious.
Use backwards psychology instead. Take control of a small-cap company like SCO,
and sacrifice it in the battle against Open Source like so...
- advance a "super-viral" parody of GPL as a legal concept in a court
case, e.g. claim rights to IBM's JFS because IBM added JFS to their AIX, which
contains at least some SCO-owned code
- the theory gets slapped down, but good, in court. The judge rules the
"viral" concept invalid.
Some time later, blatantly rip off some GPL'd code. When somebody takes you to
court over it, you invoke the case law established in the previous court case.
Yes, the case law may refer to a gross parody of the GPL, but case law can be
stretched a lot. Does this sound at all possible ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:22 PM EST |
| She's starting to get dupe fever :-) Isn't this a repeat?
---
The only reason we retain the rights we have is because people *JUST
LIKE US* died to preserve those rights.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:38 PM EST |
Laura Didio just went off the deep end again:
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/3312451
---
Conspiracy theories aside, there are two real threats to Microsoft if
substantial code has been leaked, according to Yankee Group senior analyst Laura
Didio: even worse security for Microsoft apps and bootleg copies of the software
being passed around like bottles of Thunderbird wine.
Didio told internetnews.com that valid threats are on the increase because the
people creating the attacks are more sophisticated -- and the technology is more
available.
"Up until now it was more like the 70 - 30 rule, where 70 percent of the
threats are bogus. Now its more like 50 - 50," Didio said. "With the
open source community, there are a large percentage of tinkers and 'ankle
biters' who are trying their hand at hacking. Some are even communicating with
each other. So it only takes one or two of these groups sharing information to
be able to pull something off. When you have this type of passion, it's hard to
fight because these people are like virtual suicide car bombers."
---
wow.
-brendan[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Didio is a shill, and it's so obvious that people will notice - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:46 PM EST
- Disgusting - Authored by: blang on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:52 PM EST
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by AT&T - Authored by: belzecue on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 07:58 PM EST
- DiDio's articles are open source - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:09 PM EST
- Knowledge != Intent - Authored by: Rhys Weatherley on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:31 PM EST
- Shock and Awe - Authored by: Nurseman on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:56 PM EST
- $ echo 8/85 -- AT&T Made No Claim to Derivatives, Only to Software Developed by AT&T - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 01:26 AM EST
- The link as a link - Authored by: swengr on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 08:12 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:01 PM EST |
...hey guys...
I don't know how true this is yet but it is raising alot of noise over at
slashdot. It seems (allegedly) that someone has dropped Windows 2000 and NT
source code out into the wild. I think this is a terrible thing. Look at what
the virus writers were able to do without the code. What will they be able to
do now that they can get the code illegally.
...shudders...:(
Slashdot:
http://slashdot.org/articles/04/02/12/2114228.shtml?tid=109&tid=187
Neowin:
http://www.neowin.net/
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:14 PM EST |
| This issue of $ echo supplies all the nails required. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 08:43 PM EST |
If the patent is as general and dangerous as some here have said, perhaps right
now might be a good time to start looking for examples of prior art. The more
general (and potentially dangerous) the patent, the more likely it is that
examples of prior art can be found.
Patents, especially silly vague and general US software patents, are probably a
bigger threat to OSS than copyright. No problem to rewrite code. Avoiding whole
areas of functionality could be a lot tougher. Perhaps Groklaw could take this
on as an ongoing project - identify potentially dangerous patents early and
build up a database of examples of possible prior art. Easier to start looking
early rather than waiting until the submarine surfaces.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: pooky on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 09:25 PM EST |
"Contact your Account Executive for information or
specimen copies."
You mean to tell me that Sequent's license was not only modified by AT&T as
stated, but there is a specimin copy retained by AT&T containing the
modifications? Shouldn't SCO have this in their files?!?! They are after all,
"the successor in interest to AT&T".
Lets see. SCO had a copy of IBM's license and all the side agreements, should
have had a copy of Sequent's license stating plainly that AT&T did not claim
derivative works that did not include AT&T code, yet proceeded anyway to
harass IBM with a lawsuit based on this principal. This is either a) criminal or
b) the legal bluder of the millenium.
-pooky
---
Veni, vidi, velcro.
"I came, I saw, I stuck around."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- (c) Egregious - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 09:38 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, February 12 2004 @ 10:28 PM EST |
It is nice this newsletter proves that IBM's position is right. However, it
doesn't matter.
Even if the code IBM wrote is declared part of SVR4, Novell can still order SCO
to waive all claims it is making in court about AIX code being inserted in
Linux.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Night Flyer on Friday, February 13 2004 @ 12:06 AM EST |
From what I know about "corporate ego" (I have worked for 2 major
multi-nationals, we are seeing an aspect of it from Dale McBride at SCO) I find
it intriguing that AT&T wrote the copyright and licenses this way.
Certainly I don't expect M$ to do this in my lifetime, even under the threat of
lawsuits.
It seems clear that if I wrote code for NUMA, not in the original, as separate
code and programs, compatible with AT&T code I can copyright it separately.
But, if I have to go inside some of the original AT&T programs and add code
to provide new definitions or hooks for new hardware (such as USB2, Intel
pentium processors, MMX, etc.), or suppose I correct an portion of code being
used by a virus or worm, my understanding is that it is considered as a
derivative.
If the changes are 20 lines in a 10,000 line program, can I protect my
derivative with my added/modified code with a sort of dual copyright? Or does
it revert to the AT&T copyright for this program file?
I guess my question is also, how much of the original license still exists, and
for who? My presumption is that the new "owner" of the AT&T code
(hypothetically Novell or SCO) can change the licensing terms for new licensees,
(but not for original licensees with perpetual licenses).
Also, depending on the terms written into the perpetual licenses, it is
conceivable that there are clauses allowing changes in the terms of the license
agreement.
---------------------
My clan Motto: VERITAS VINCIT ! (Truth Conquers)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, February 14 2004 @ 02:02 PM EST |
| The trademark UNIX may not be used as a noun, but must always be used as an
adjective modifying a common noun as in "UNIX operating system."
Well it
always bothered me that everyone keeps saying UNIX and Unixware. Making a
distinction between UNIX and Unixware but Amendment A to the APA clearly shows
that UNIX and Unixware are to be changed to UNIX Unixware and Auxiliary
Products. (note no comma, with the comma it makes it look like a separte product
rather that part of the product name that SCO purchased) Now this fits with
$ echo 8/85 definition of how UNIX products are to be referred to. See I'm
not a 'puter geek but I always remembered it was UNIX blah blah! I was not sure
because they say your memory is the first thing to go. Well, upon reading
peoples posts, what the various lawyers (SCO's, IBM's, Novells) state and write
and what the media reports they all quote "UNIX and Unixware" not the actual
product that SCO purchased "UNIX Unixware and Auxiliary Products" and a contract
to sell and manage UNIX System V licenses. What kind of threw me off was the
noise in the image (PDF) of Amendment A it had me thinking that there was a
period or a comma there but it's just noise like the noise SCO spews.
Now am I
correct or am I just sufferin' a flashback? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rand on Sunday, February 15 2004 @ 03:55 PM EST |
I'm going to make another prediction:
IBM will not bring up the
$ echo affair unless and until their motion for summary judgement is
rejected. Hint: it has to do with "matters of law" vs "matters
of fact"..---
The Wright brothers were not the first to fly an
aircraft...they were the first to LAND an aircraft. (IANAL and whatever) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
