|
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 | # ]
|
|
Authored by: troll on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 05:26 AM EDT |
so PJ can find them more quickly. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
|
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 | # ]
|
- Derivative work - Authored by: Jude on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Derivative work - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 11:01 AM EDT
- SOFTWARE PRODUCT - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 11:47 AM EDT
- SOFTWARE PRODUCT - Authored by: surak on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 12:25 PM EDT
- SOFTWARE PRODUCT - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 01:17 PM EDT
- HP-UX - Authored by: jesse on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 03:04 PM EDT
- HP-UX - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 06:09 PM EDT
- HP-UX - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 08:54 PM EDT
- SOFTWARE PRODUCT - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 08:08 PM EDT
- Unix fragmentation - Authored by: darthaggie on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 12:28 PM EDT
- Chasing red herrings - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 03:11 PM EDT
- SOFTWARE PRODUCT - Authored by: John Hasler on Friday, July 30 2004 @ 07:38 PM EDT
- BSD and ATT - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 31 2004 @ 11:49 PM EDT
|
|
|
|