decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
The 1986 AT&T/SGI License
Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:42 AM EDT

Here is the AT&T-Silicon Graphics, Inc. license, dated Jan. 24, 1986, to add to our collection. Help yourselves.


  


The 1986 AT&T/SGI License | 55 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off-Topic posts here please
Authored by: cybervegan on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 04:39 AM EDT
To keep the clutter down

---
Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Errors here please,
Authored by: troll on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 05:26 AM EDT
so PJ can find them more quickly.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The 1986 AT&T/SGI License
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 06:35 AM EDT
I'm sure that I had heard that SGI licenced thier kernel to AT&T (because of
the realtime extensions).

This would have been in the early 90's.

Has any one else heard this or could verify this?

DBLD

[ Reply to This | # ]

It has the $echo clarification verbatim:
Authored by: evbergen on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 06:52 AM EDT
II. Grant of Rights

2.01 [...] AT&T-IS claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a
modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

Cheers,


Emile.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The 1986 AT&T/SGI License
Authored by: vegard on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:11 AM EDT
From 7.05:

"LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOFTWARE PRODUCTS
subject to this Agreement in confidence for AT&T-IS."

Later on in that section:

"If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at
any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not
attributable to LICENSEE, its contractors or employees of either, LICENSEE'S
obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such
time"

To me, it looks like it says in clear text that anything that is public
information is no longer a secret.

This should mean that anything published in books, in BSD, taught in schools,
etc, is automatically no longer restricted?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Look at that clause 2.01!
Authored by: soronlin on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:20 AM EDT
It gets better and better. This is a version of the licence that we haven't seen before and the non-ownership clause is added to section 2.01 in a form better than I had dared to hope.
...such right to use includes the right to modify such SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT, provided that any such modification or derivative work that contains any part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement is treated hereunder the same as such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. AT&T-IS claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or derivative work that is not part of a SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
It seems to me that that clarifies the wording used in the IBM side letter, and shuts the door on SCO's fantastical lien; ("we don't own it, but we can say what you can do with it.") The lien such as it is, is limited to works that include SOFTWARE PRODUCT. The term "ownership interest" would seem to include any such lien, and AT&T are explicitly not claiming it where works do not include SOFTWARE PRODUCT.

Unfortunately section 7.05(a)'s denial of the disclosure of methods or concepts still stands.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )