|
AT&T-Regents of the U. of California -- The 1983 Educational License - PDF and text |
|
Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:33 AM EST
|
Here, at last, thanks to rsmith, who was willing to take on such a task, we get to see an AT&T educational license [PDF], the one it entered into with the Regents of the University of California, effective as of 1983 and executed in 1984. This is the license agreement Otis Wilson talked about in his 1992 BSDi deposition. As you will see, restrictive clauses that those deposed in the BSDi case were testifying about are found in this type of license. Obviously, a university computer science department would have different needs in a software license than a commercial company like IBM planning to develop software for marketing around the world. I have marked in blue text the parts that obviously would be particularly and laughably inappropriate for IBM.
For contrast, if you wish to review the IBM commercial license and its amendments and side letter, you can find them on the Legal Docs page, in the Contracts and Documents section. These are two very different licenses. Ironically, SCO itself attached this as an exhibit to their Redacted Memorandum in Support of SCO's Expedited Motion to Enforce the Court's Amended Scheduling Order Dated June 10, 2004 [PDF], which it submitted to try to get IBM's summary judgment motions postponed. They assert it shows contradictory testimony and present it to the judge as evidence of a material fact in dispute, which is what you need to get past a summary judgment motion: "Although IBM claims there is no issue of disputed fact on what it calls, for example, the dispositive contract issue in the case, IBM asks the Court to rely on the testimony of witnesses who previously gave sworn testimony that directly contradicts their current testimony on this key issue. See pp. 42-59, below. (In fact, what IBM labels SCO’s 'New-Found Contract Theory' is the very theory that these same IBM witnesses described under oath more than ten years ago, when they were immersed in the day-to-day issues, and before IBM came to represent them or fund their representation.) This flatly contradictory testimony, which IBM has had for months, obviously precludes any possibility that IBM’s new interpretation – its effort to rewrite history – could be undisputed as a matter of law." As it happens, to me it merely proves that the BSDi depositions, such as Otis Wilson's, were about an entirely different license, for a very different purpose, and with a different licensee. I have marked in red the wording in section 4.08 that SCO adores, about "methods and concepts", and upon which SCO has hung its hat and apparently also its theory of the case, poor things. This was a paper exhibit, and the document is very hard to read even in the original, let alone the PDF we made of it, so you will find places where we placed question marks or just the word "illegible" in brackets, where we were not positive, and note that the PDF includes at the end pages and pages of lists that we couldn't make out clearly enough to try to transcribe. I also noted in working on this that while we have the body of the text of SCO's Redacted Memorandum, #IBM-291, transcribed, we never did the Table of Contents. If anyone would be willing to do that for us to make our archives complete, that would be wonderful.
**************************
Sys. V. Ed.-040183-1
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE AGREEMENT
Effective as of July 1, 1983, AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH
COMPANY ("AT&T"), having an office at 195 Broadway, New York, New
York 10007, and THE REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
("LICENSEE"), having an office at Berkeley California 94720, agree as
follows:
AT&T grants fee-free to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and
nonexclusive right to use LICENSED SOFTWARE subject to the terms and
conditions in Appendix A attached hereto and made part hereof and
subject to the receipt of the service charge specified below. Such
right to use includes the right to modify LICENSED SOFTWARE and to
prepare derivative works based on LICENSED SOFTWARE, and shall be
limited solely to uses for academic and educational purposes and
solely on or in connection with the use of DESIGNATED CPUs. LICENSED
SOFTWARE means all or any portion of the computer programs, other
information and documentation: (i) listed in the attached Schedule
for UNIX# System V, VAX Version and any additional Schedule forwarded
pursuant to Section 2.03 of Appendix A, (ii) furnished to LICENSEE by
AT&T or any of its associated companies in conjunction with any
provision of support services for UNIX System V, or (iii) prepared by
LICENSEE as a modification or a derivative work based on any of the
materials so listed or furnished. DESIGNATED CPUs means any central
processing unit ("CPU") identified by location, type and serial
number as follows:
(See Attached List)
and any additional or replacing CPU subsequently approved by
AT&T.
LICENSEE shall not include in its curriculum any course of
instruction in which the source code or other representation of the
internal operation of the LICENSED SOFTWARE is disclosed or
discussed, or prepare or publish any documentation disclosing or
describing such code or representation.
LICENSEE shall pay to AT&T, within sixty (60) days after
execution of this agreement by it and AT&T, a nonrefundable
service charge of $800.00 for the CPUs listed in this
agreement. AT&T or one of its associated companies will deliver
one copy of the LICENSED SOFTWARE listed in the attached Schedule
within a reasonable time after receipt of such payment. For each
additional CPU approved by AT&T, LICENSEE shall pay AT&T an
additional service charge of $400.00. All amounts are in
U.S. funds. LICENSEE agrees not to transmit the LICENSED SOFTWARE,
directly or indirectly outside the United States.
AMERICAN TELEPHONE AND |
THE REGENTS OF THE |
TELEGRAPH COMPANY |
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA |
By: ____[signature O.L. Wilson]____ |
By:___[signature Katherine R. DeLucchi]___ |
Director of Technology Licensing |
Title: Material Manager [handwritten] |
Date: AUG 15 1984 [stamped] |
Date: 7-27-84 [hand-written] |
Attachment:
Location |
Type |
Serial Number |
University of California - San Diego 1426 Applied Physics and Math
Building
La Jolla, California 92093 |
VAX 11/780 |
7902942[3?]K |
Computer Science Department
5438 Applied Physics & Math
Building, Muir Campus |
VAX 11/780 |
28680 |
Biology Department
2309 Bonner Hall |
PDP 11/45 |
141 |
Institute for Cognitive Science
1550 Psychology and Linguistics
Prime Building |
VAX 11/750 |
SM82F28302K |
|
PDP 11/45 |
422 |
Department of Chemistry
3120 Urey Hall, Revelle Campus |
VAX 11/780 |
78082[?]9N |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C27975K |
|
PDP 11/32 |
AG33573 |
|
PDP 11/34 |
AG28361 |
|
CAL Data 135 |
DE001019 |
|
CAL Data 135 |
DS00044 |
|
CAL Data 135 |
DS00171 |
Department of Music
Center for Music Experiment
Building 408, Warren Campus |
VAX 11/780 |
N180028766K |
|
PDP 11/55 |
NM81C28461K |
Computer Center
1426 Applied Physics &
Math Building |
VAX 11/780 |
79029421K |
|
VAX 11/780 |
82F28392K |
|
VAX 11/780 |
82F28438K |
University of California - Livermore
(Davis)
Department of Applied Sciences
College of Engineering
Hertz Hall, Room 8 |
PDP 11/60 |
WM00273 |
University of California - Santa
Cruz
Computer Center
34 Communications Building |
PDP 11/34 |
AG10962 |
|
PDP 11/70 |
WM80027024K |
|
PDP 11/70 |
10586 |
|
PDP 11/780 |
N179013841K |
|
PDP 11/780 |
81C1G568K |
415 Kerr Hall |
PDP 11/34 |
AG29220 |
68 Kerr Hall |
PDP 11/34 |
AG25851 |
125 Thinmann |
PDP 11/34 |
WM7702SPG10 |
298 Applied Sciences Builing |
PDP 11/34 |
24180 |
168 Natural Sciences 2 |
PDP 11/780 |
81014469K |
250 Applied Sciences Building |
P[S?]P 11/780 |
81016455K |
Attachment - page 2
Location |
Type |
Serial Number |
University of California - Los
Angeles
Computer Science Department
3292 Boelter Hall
405 Hilgerd Avenue |
VAX 11/780 |
SV02917 |
Office of Academic Computing
4328 Math Sciences Addition
405 Hilgerd Avenue
Los Angeles, California 90024 |
VAX 11/750 |
82F23024K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23025K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23026K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23027K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23028K |
Computer Science Department
3286 Boelter Hall |
VAX 11/750 |
82F23019K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23020K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23021K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23022K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23023K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23029K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23030K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23031K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23032K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82F23033K |
Computer Science Department
3420 Boelter Hall |
VAX 11/750 |
82C25198K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22109K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22238K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22263K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22264K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22265K |
|
VAX 11/750 |
82C22266K |
Office of Academic Computing |
VAX 11/750 |
81C24818K |
4328 MSA |
Sys. V-Ed.-040183-2
Appendix A
TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR
EDUCATIONAL SOFTWARE AGREEMENT
USE OF LICENSED SOFTWARE
1.01 (a) Uses for "academic and educational purposes" means uses
directly related to teaching and degree-granting programs and uses in
noncommercial research by students and faculty members, including any
uses made in connection with the development of enhancements or
modifications to the LICENSED SOFTWARE, provided that (i) neither the
results of such research nor any enhancement or modification so
developed is intended primarily for the benefit of a third
party. (ii) such results, enhancements and modifications (all to the
extent that they do not include any portion of LICENSED SOFTWARE) are
made available to anyone including AT&T and its associate
companies without restrictions on use, copying or further
distribution, notwithstanding any proprietary right (such as a
copyright or patent right) that could be asserted by LICENSEE, its
students or faculty members and (iii) any copy of any such result
enhancement or modification furnished by LICENSEE is furnished for no
more than the cost of reproduction and shipping. Any such copy that
includes any portion of LICENSED SOFTWARE may be furnished to others
than AT&T and its associate companies only pursuant to the
provisions of Section 4.08(c).
(b) Commercial use by LICENSEE of the LICENSED SOFTWARE or of any
such result enhancement or modification is not permitted under this
agreement. Such commercial use is permissible only pursuant to the
terms of an appropriate commercial software agreement between
AT&T and LICENSEE. Any such result, enhancement or modification
may be developed further by LICENSEE for commercial use such as by
developing software for license or for a third party only on CPUs
covered by such a commercial software agreement and only provided that
the result enhancement or modification in the form in which it exists
when such a commercial software agreement is executed by LICENSEE,
remains available to anyone as specified in Section 1.01(a)
1.02 At any time at AT&T'S request, LICENSEE will furnish in
writing to AT&T a description of the use of LICENSED SOFTWARE
sufficient to enable AT&T to verify that such a use is solely for
academic and educational purposes.
1.03 A single back-up CPU may be used as a substitute for a
DESIGNATED CPU without notice to AT&T during any time when such a
DESIGNATED CPU is inoperative because it is malfunctioning or
undergoing repair, maintenance or other modifications.
1.04 No right is granted for the use of LICENSED SOFTWARE, directly
for any third person, or for any use by any third person of the
LICENSED SOFTWARE.
ADDITIONAL OR REPLACING CPUs
2.01 LICENSEE may at any time request in writing that an additional
CPU be made a DESIGNATED CPU or that a replacing CPU be substituted
for a current DESIGNATED CPU. Any such request must include an
identification of each such CPU by location, type and serial number
and a description of the proposed use of the LICENSED SOFTWARE on
each additional or replacing CPU sufficient to show that such use will
be solely for academic and educational purposes. Any such requests
shall become effective on agreement thereto in writing by AT&T
and receipt by AT&T of the appropriate service charge.
2.02 LICENSEE may obtain additional copies of LICENSED SOFTWARE for
use on additional DESIGNATED CPUs on payment of a distribution charge
to AT&T for each copy. AT&T will quote the amount of such
distribution charge on request.
2.03 There are different versions of LICENSED SOFTWARE for different
types of CPUs. The Schedule(s) attached hereto and the version(s) of
LICENSED SOFTWARE to be furnished hereunder are determined by the
type(s) of CPU(s) specified in this agreement. If an additional CPU
of a different type becomes a DESIGNATED CPU pursuant to Section 2.01
and a version of LICENSED SOFTWARE for such type is available from
AT&T, AT&T will forward to LICENSEE an additional Schedule
for such version. Within a reasonable time after such designation
becomes effective and payment for the distribution charges is
received, AT&T or one of its associated companies will furnish to
LICENSEE a copy of such version in the form identified in such
additional Schedule.
TERMINATION
3.01 If LICENSEE shall fail to fulfill one or more of its
obligations under this agreement AT&T may, upon its election and
in addition to any other remedies that it may have, at any time
terminate all the rights granted by it hereunder by not less than two (2)
months written notice to LICENSEE specifying any such breech, unless
within the period of such notice all breaches specified therein shall
have been remedied; upon such termination LICENSEE shall within
thirty (30) days deliver to AT&T all documentation containing the
LICENSED SOFTWARE and shall render unusable all LICENSED SOFTWARE
placed in any storage apparatus.
MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
4.01 LICENSEE assures AT&T that it does not intend to and will
not knowingly, without the prior written consent, if required, of the
Office of Export Administration of the U.S. Department of Commerce,
Washington D.C. 20230, transmit directly or indirectly:
- the LICENSED SOFTWARE; or
- any immediate product (including processes and services)
produced directly by the use of the LICENSED SOFTWARE; or
- any commodity produced by such immediate product if the
immediate product of the LICENSED SOFTWARE is a plant capable of
producing a commodity or is a major component of such plant;
to Afghanistan or to any Group P, Q, S, W, Y or Z country specified
in supplement No.1 to section 320 of the Export Administration
Regulation issued by the U.S. Department of Commerce. LICENSEE agrees
that its obligations under this section 4.01 shall survive and
continue after any termination of rights under this agreement.
4.02 LICENSEE shall pay all taxes, including any sales or use tax
(and any related interest or penalty), however designated, imposed
as a result of the existence or of this agreement,
except any income tax imposed upon AT&T by any governmental
entity in the Unites States. Fees specified in this agreement are
exclusive of taxes. If AT&T is required to collect a tax to be
paid by LICENSEE, LICENSEE shall pay such tax to AT&T on
demand.
4.03 Nothing contained herein shall be construed as conferring by
implication, estoppel or otherwise any license or right under any
patent or trademark. However, AT&T waives any rights it may have
under patents with respect to the use, pursuant to the rights granted
herein, of the part of LICENSED SOFTWARE, which is UNIX System V by
LICENSEE, except to the extent that such patents apply (i)
independently of the use of such part of LICENSED SOFTWARE, (ii)
because a DESIGNATED CPU is used in combination with other hardware
or (iii) because such [part?] of LICENSED SOFTWARE is modified from the
version or versions furnished hereunder to LICENSEE by AT&T or
an associated company thereof or is used in combination with other
software.
4.04 This agreement shall prevail notwithstanding any conflicting
terms or legends which may appear in the LICENSED SOFTWARE.
4.05 AT&T and its associated companies make no representations
or warranties, expressly or impliedly. By way of example but not of
limitation, AT&T and its associated companies make no
representations or warranties of merchantability or fitness for any
particular purpose, or that the use of LICENSED SOFTWARE will not
infringe any patent, copyright or trademark. AT&T and its
associated companies shall not be held to any liability with respect
to any claim by LICENSEE or a third party on account of, or arising
from, the use of such LICENSED SOFTWARE.
4.06 LICENSEE agrees it will not, without AT&T'S prior written
permission, use in advertising, publicity, packaging, labeling or
otherwise any trade name, trademark, trade device, service mark,
symbol or any abbreviation, contraction or simulation thereof owned
by AT&T or any of its associated companies or used by AT&T or
any of its associated companies to identify any of its products or
services.
4.07 Neither execution of this agreement nor anything in it or in
the LICENSED SOFTWARE shall be construed as an obligation upon
AT&T or any of its associated companies to furnish any person,
including LICENSEE, any assistance whatsoever, or any information or
documentation other than the LICENSED SOFTWARE.
4.08 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it will hold the LICENSED SOFTWARE in
confidence for AT&T and its associated companies. LICENSEE
further agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of the LICENSED
SOFTWARE (including methods and concepts used therein) to anyone,
except students and faculty members of LICENSEE to whom such
disclosure is necessary in the use for which rights are granted
hereunder.
(b) LICENSEE shall appropriately notify students and faculty members
who are permitted to use the LICENSED SOFTWARE, or to whom the
LICENSED SOFTWARE is disclosed, of the provisions of this agreement
and that any such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept
in confidence by them.
(c) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.08(a) LICENSEE may
distribute its version of LICENSED SOFTWARE to other licensees of
AT&T for UNIX System V, provided that LICENSEE first verifies the
status of any such other licensee in acceptance with specific
instructions issued by AT&T. Such instructions may be obtained on
request from AT&T at the address specified in Section 4.13.
4.09 The obligations of LICENSEE and of its students and faculty
members under Section 4.08 shall survive and continue after any
termination of rights under this agreement. However, such obligations
shall not extend to any information relating to the LICENSED SOFTWARE
which is now available to the general public by acts not attributable
to LICENSEE, its students or faculty members.
4.10 LICENSEE agrees that it will not use the LICENSED SOFTWARE
except as authorized herein, that it will not make, have made, permit
to be made or distribute any copies of LICENSED SOFTWARE except as
necessary in connection with the rights granted hereunder, and that
each such copy shall contain the same copyrights and [of
proprietary natures of notices?] giving
credit to a developer, which appear on or in the LICENSED
SOFTWARE.
4.11 Neither this agreement nor any rights hereunder, in whole or in
part, shall be assignable or otherwise transferable.
4.12 Nothing in this agreement grants to LICENSEE the right to sell,
lease or otherwise transfer or dispose of the LICENSED SOFTWARE in
whole or in part.
4.13 Any payment, notice, request or other communication hereunder
shall be deemed sufficiently given and any delivery hereunder deemed
made when sent by certified mail addressed to LICENSEE at its office
specified in this agreement or addressed to AT&T at P.O. Box
25000, Greensboro, North Carolina 27420 (to the attention of the
Technology Licensing Organization), or at such changed address as the
addressee shall have specified by written notice.
4.14 This agreement sets forth the entire agreement and
understanding between the parties as to the subject matters hereof and
merges all prior discussions between them, and neither of the parties
shall be bound by any conditions, definitions, warranties,
understandings or representations with respect to such subject matter
other than as expressly provided herein, or in any prior existing
written agreement between the parties, or as duly set forth on or
subsequent to the effective date hereof in writing and signed by a
proper and duly authorized representative of the party to be bound
thereby.
4.15 [lines crossed out by ink and initialed KdL]
Schedule for
UNIX System V, VAX version
January 17, 1983
Note: The printed documentation and on-line documentation listed in sections (1) and (2) are general in nature and not intended to completely describe the COMPUTER PROGRAMS listed in sections (3) and (4); nor are all COMPUTER PROGRAMS described in such documentation necessarily in the LICENSED SOFTWARE.
The on-line documentation listed in section (2) and the COMPUTER PROGRAMS listed in sections (3) and (4) will be supplied on two 1200 ft. reels of nine track, 1600 [BPI?] magnetic tape.
1. PRINTED DOCUMENTATION
UNIX System Release Description -- System V
UNIX System Transition Aid -- System V
UNIX System User's Manual -- System V
UNIX System Administrator's Manual -- System V
UNIX Operating System Error Message Manual -- System V
UNIX System Administrator's Guide
UNIX System Operator's Guide
UNIX System User's Guide
UNIX System Document Processing Guide
UNIX System Graphics Guide
UNIX System Programming Guide
UNIX System Support Tools Guide
2. ON-LINE DOCUMENTATION
READ.ME
[illegible]
3. OBJECT SOFTWARE
3.1 Boot File
Tape Boot Loader
Initial Load Program
3.2 Cpio Program
Executable cpio program
3.3. Root File System (physical)
[illegible]
3.4 Root File System (cpio forma[t?])
[illegible]
3.5 /Usr File System
[illegible]
3.6 [RJE?] Software
[illegible]
3.7 Graphics Software
[illegible]
4. SOURCE SOFTWARE
[illegible]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:45 AM EST |
you know you want to [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:55 AM EST |
IBM's commercial License for internal business purposes is less restrictive then
a educational License for academic and educational purposes.
PJ, are you sure of being helpful to IBM's cause ?
This looks pretty devastating to me. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: soronlin on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:59 AM EST
- What do you mean? - Authored by: Anni on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:20 AM EST
- What do you mean? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 10:41 AM EST
- be nice - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 11:59 AM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:30 AM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:39 AM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:52 AM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: eggplant37 on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:13 AM EST
- Microsft offers to license the internet - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:31 AM EST
- 1- AT&T reps said IBM lic was different! 2-SCO's secret attack on BSD license, TROJAN style? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:02 AM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: theswede on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:06 AM EST
- What's really going on. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 10:17 AM EST
- Is that you Biff? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 12:25 PM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 02:47 PM EST
- Rather than acting indignant state the problem - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:53 PM EST
- PJ, what are you doing ??? - Authored by: Nigel on Monday, November 08 2004 @ 04:32 AM EST
- We're not IBM toadies. - Authored by: mscibing on Friday, November 12 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST
|
Authored by: MathFox on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:25 AM EST |
To make a link to a story use <A
HREF="http://www.example.com/">Link Text</A> and post in HTML
mode.
---
When people start to comment on the form of the message, it is a sign that they
have problems to accept the truth of the message.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 06:55 AM EST |
The title of the agreement was a dead giveaway: "Educational Software
Agreement" - even I could catch it. Kudos to SCOG for not rising to the
bait and applying the restrictions of a non-comercial license agreement to the
commercial license: that's a great way to make sure that the commercial UNIX
licensees never saw that sucker punch coming - The poor things were properly
relying on the terms of the commercial AT&T contract. Tsk, tsk.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mandalay on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:07 AM EST |
Did we stop doing this? If so, I missed the discussion. This is a real chance
for SCO to put their views since scoinfo.com is not certain at this point.
Main posts in this thread may only be made by senior managers or attorneys for
"The SCO Group". Main posts must use the name and position of the
poster at "The SCO Group". Main posters must post in their official
capacity at "The SCO Group".
Sub-posts will also be allowed from non-"The SCO Group" employees or
attorneys. Sub-posts from persons not connected with "The SCO Group"
must be very polite, address other posters and the main poster with the
honorific "Mr." or "Mrs." or "Ms.", as
appropriate, use correct surnames, not call names or suggest or imply unethical
or illegal conduct by "The SCO Group" or its employees or attorneys.
This thread requires an extremely high standard of conduct and even slightly
marginal posts will be deleted.
P.J. says you must be on your very best behavior.
If you want to comment on this thread, please post under "O/T"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: mandalay on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:21 AM EST |
Loved those PDP11's.
But PDP-8's was where I first learned the fundamentals. Still have the manual,
which says: "PDP-8 series computers have a basic core memory of 4096
twelve-bit words"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: bliss on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 08:30 AM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: marbux on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 11:01 AM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 11:14 AM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 12:01 PM EST
- PDP-5 - Authored by: gdeinsta on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 03:23 PM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:18 PM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. (maybe at the time) - Authored by: Zarbo on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:30 PM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 05:37 PM EST
- Ah, the days of iron men and wooden computers - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:14 PM EST
- Loved those PDP 11's. - Authored by: jim Reiter on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: blacklight on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:23 AM EST |
No new website for SCOG? So SCOG is going to be continuing to sponge off groklaw
the way it is sponging off the rest of the Open Source community. Sigh.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: coffee17 on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:09 AM EST |
As early as point 1.01 a) ii) we see that the license that IBM and Sequent had
are vastly different from that. The point says:
... such results,
enhancements and modifications (all to the extent that they do not include any
portion of LICENSED SOFTWARE) are made available to anyone including AT&T
and its associate companies without restrictions on use, copying or further
distribution, notwithstanding any proprietary right (such as a copyright or
patent right) that could be asserted by LICENSEE, its students or faculty
members ...
Heck, I remember there was a Sequent declaration where
they explicitly pointed out that AT&T/USL had to seperately license back
portions of Dynix that AT&T/USL wanted to include in Unix.
All here
who think that IBM would have paid for a contract where all their hard work just
goes right back into a product that they'll have to continue to pay to license
it's use raise their hand. Wow, and yet Microsoft thought it's Shared Source
would take off. <sarcasm>Yes, please let us pay to be able to slave away
and improve your product. Please! Please!</sarcasm>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DebianUser on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:12 AM EST |
This is such an amazing document. At this date it is hard to imagine how a
university could sign such an agreement, which is so strongly biased in favor of
ATT as the software vendor. The restrictions are so adverse to the interests of
faculty and staff that it is unclear what educational benefits could be expected
to flow from the arrangement.
I wonder also how the notorious legal case between ATT and BSD could have
ended with the "pox on both your houses" decree that seems to have
been the result. Could it have been the case that everyone involved concluded
the agreement on a "nudge, nudge, wink, wink ..." basis, and that came
out during the case?
And how do the agreement provisions square with the fact that years ago I
bought copies of the Unix system manuals off the shelf of the local bookstore?
Is that an effect of ATT later realizing that such draconian secrecy provisions
would stop them from ever being able to hire anyone knowledegable about unix
systems?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: webster on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:24 AM EST |
"SCO is trying to wipe out the fact that AT&T had different licenses,
and that the IBM and Sequent licenses were very liberal toward those that wanted
to create their own code."
The SCO lawyers presented Wilson's deposition and then argued that it
contradicted the other deponents regarding the IBM license.
If they made a mistake and didn't realize there were more and different
licenses, they should say so, withdraw this deposition and amend their filings.
I hardly think they were mistaken.
Otherwise they have deliberately presented irrelevant and misleading material on
which to establish a contradiction to the witnesses and license that IBM enjoys
to this software. IBM should move to strike it for these reasons. Make SCO
lawyers do it, explain it, or maintain the "lie" to their further
detriment.
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: joef on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 09:56 AM EST |
As I recall what the DCC suit asked for, such as lists of CPUs, certification of
not sending anything to Afghanistan, etc., it looks like they were extracted
from the AT&T educational license. Does the commercial license include such
terms? Was TSG trying to enforce the wrong license in the demands it sent to
the Famous Fifteen Hundred?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: brian on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 10:26 AM EST |
It has been argued here that UNIX has been taught in
classes and written up
in books. That violates section
4.08 as written below if done by UCB:
4.08 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it will hold
the LICENSED
SOFTWARE in confidence for AT&T and its associated
companies. LICENSEE
further agrees that it shall not make
any disclosure of the LICENSED SOFTWARE
(including methods
and concepts used therein) to anyone, except students and
faculty members of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is
necessary in the use
for which rights are granted
hereunder.
(b) LICENSEE shall
appropriately notify students and
faculty members who are permitted to use the
LICENSED
SOFTWARE, or to whom the LICENSED SOFTWARE is disclosed,
of the
provisions of this agreement and that any such
disclosure is made in
confidence and shall be kept in
confidence by them.
(c)
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 4.08(a)
LICENSEE may distribute its
version of LICENSED SOFTWARE
to other licensees of AT&T for UNIX System V,
provided
that LICENSEE first verifies the status of any such other
licensee
in acceptance with specific instructions issued
by AT&T. Such instructions
may be obtained on request from
AT&T at the address specified in Section
4.13.
This section indicates to me that anything they
used
the
code for in teaching also had to be kept "in confidence".
The only
thing that I see that negates this is the
following:
4.09 The obligations of LICENSEE and of its
students and
faculty members under Section 4.08 shall survive and
continue after any
termination of rights under this
agreement. However, such obligations shall
not extend to
any information relating to the LICENSED SOFTWARE which is
now
available to the general public by acts not
attributable to LICENSEE, its
students or faculty
members.
So it boils down to just
who released this "valuable
code" (to use a Darlism) and if it was the
University, can
SCO go after them for anything? Of course, I could just be
blowing smoke here but I would think if there was any case
it would be
against the University.
As an aside, does the length of time that
nothing was
done
matter in the "confidential" clauses of contracts like
this? In other words, if a company does nothing (due
diligance) to stop leaks
as they occur can they later try
to use this clause as a trump card?
B. --- #ifndef IANAL
#define IANAL
#endif [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 12:30 PM EST |
It is important to keep in mind that this 1983 software agreement was superceded
by the 1985
software agreement , and that the Otis Wilson
1992 deposition covered both licenses. The 1985 agreement is interesting
because it uses much of the same language as the second version of the
commercial agreement (the version used for the DaimlerChrysler and oldSCO
license agreements).
As an aside, in rereading SCO's Memerandum that
referenced
the 1983 agreement, I noticed that they incorrectly refer to
"Berkeley
Software Design" as the licensee, when in fact they should be
referring to
the University of California.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: codswallop on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 12:36 PM EST |
There's a much higher nonsense level to the comments than is usual. I think the
election must still have people stirred up. Moreover I'm not sure I agree with
one of the essential points of the article.
1) The educational and
commercial agreements are clearly different. The relevance of any testimony from
the Berkeley case is for SCO to demonstrate.
2) The Berkeley case was
settled. USL agreed that except for a few files the Berkeley code was clean.
These files have been replace. This is over. It can't be relitigated.
3) The
Berkeley settlement was sealed under the seal of the Regents, who have such
power under the California constitution. Under the 11th amendment, they can't be
sued in Federal court without their consent, since they're a branch of the
government of California the California constitution , again). This is why
nobody has managed to get the agreement unsealed. Some terms, however, had to be
public to serve the ends of the agreement, so we know a lot of what's in it.
There's nothing that can affect the IBM case negatively, particularly since IBM
wasn't a party, and SCO may not have standing under it.
It should be noted
that some of what the Berekeley rulings said about the limitations on the
university's immunity is no longer correct. The Supreme Court struck down the
law it was based on.
4)There's no question that the educational licenses
were violated on a grand scale, since, among other things, the source code was
published. However, AT&T condoned this to a large extent, and the
confidentiality terms became unenforceable over time, to the extent they were
ever enforceable. They rested on 2 legs - trade secrets and copyrights. Trade
secrets have to be secret. By 1990 they weren't. Nor was there any evidence that
the university was responsible for their disclosure. Copyrights under the old
law required copyright notices on publication. AT&T neglected this. They
also included enormous amounts of code that was copyrighted by others without
attribution. This was all discussed in several rulings in the Berkeley
case.
5) While the commercial and educational agreements may be different,
they contain the same language in certain crucial respects. This language was at
the core of the Berkeley case and is at the core of the IBM
case.
2.01 AT&T grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable
and nonexclusive right to use in the United States each SOFTWARE PRODUCT
identified in the one or more Supplements hereto, solely for LICENSEE'S own
internal business purposes and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs
for such SOFTWARE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such
SOFTWARE PRODUCT and to prepare derivative works based on such SOFTWARE PRODUCT,
provided the resulting materials are treated hereunder as part of the original
SOFTWARE PRODUCT.
2.05 No right is granted by this Agreement for the use of
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS directly for others, or for any use of SOFTWARE PRODUCTS by
others.
7.06 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement in confidence for AT&T. LICENSEE
further agrees that it shall not make any disclosure of any or all of such
SOFTWARE PRODUCTS (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to
anyone, except to employees of LICENSEE to whom such disclosure is necessary to
the use for which rights are granted hereunder. LICENSEE shall appropriately
notify each employee to whom any such disclosure is made that such disclosure is
made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence by such employee. 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 or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this
section shall not apply to such information after such time.
Thus the Berkeley depositions are relevant. The deponents are
arguing that the same language meant different things in different agreements.
This is certainly possible, but it's odd. In the one case the argument is that
the methods and concepts phrase supports a mental contamination theory and in
the other case it doesn't.
However, Otis Wilson also says in the earlier
deposition that his view of the agreement relates to the whole agreement, and
that he takes no position on the meaning of parts taken in isolation. If we take
him at his word on this, there may well be no conflict in his view.
What is
clear is that AT&T's monomania about only having one set of terms to
administer, while "clarifying" them dozens of ways and apparently interpreting
the same language differently, has caused an enormous amount of trouble.
6.
None of the depositions have touched on the "internal use" clause. SCO harped on
it initially and then mostly stopped. IBM seems to have ignored it. We still
don't know what the parties thought it meant then or whether it's important to
the case. I suspect SCO has lost faith in its efficacy.
--- IANAL This
is not a legal opinion.
SCO is not a party to the APA.
Discovery relevance is to claims, not to sanity. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: J.F. on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 01:03 PM EST |
This flatly contradictory testimony, which IBM has had for months,
obviously precludes any possibility that IBM’s new interpretation – its effort
to rewrite history – could be undisputed as a matter of
law.
It's rather ironic that TSG would put that in a legal
document considering the efforts they have gone to to rewrite or erase history
themselves. :)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: SilverWave on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 01:18 PM EST |
Firefox? Bah Humbug, I say John Carroll for ZDNet
Firefox? Bah
Humbug
""Experience providing support for Firefox
As a certain
square-jawed actor might have said had he been abducted by aliens and forced to
write software, "the experience of one programmer doesn't amount to hill of
beans in this crazy world." Even so, for a browser that touts its support for
HTML standards, I was surprised to find that it had difficulty with standard
HTML.
Check out this
link under Internet Explorer, and then Firefox. I have created a Web page
with a fixed position left, top and bottom sidebar that surrounds a scrollable
area. All regions resize to completely fill the browser when its dimensions are
changed.""
Looking at the Comments I think he got it wrong... can
anyone confirm this?
"Name: Jason Barnabe
Location:
Winnipeg
Occupation: Web developer
Comment: You misunderstand how
CSS height works. The outer table's "height: 100%" means 100% of its containing
block, which is the body. The body's height is determined by its contents; NOT
the viewport height. Since the table is the only thing in the body, and the body
is as high as the table already, setting the height to 100% on the table does
nothing.
Also, Firefox does include document.all support."
Damning Comment from Ole
Clausen
--- Linux used ideas from MINIX
MINIX|UNIX
UNIX|MULTICS
MULTICS|CTSS
CTSS|FMS
In science, all work is based on what came before it.
Andy Tanenbaum, 6June04 [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Jude on Sunday, November 07 2004 @ 07:20 PM EST |
... is that this license is apparently far more restrictive than the one IBM
signed, yet AT&T was unable to use it to assert its intellectual property
claims against BSD Unix, which is clearly a descendant of AT&T code. BSD
Unix is now legally unencumbered by any Unix IP claims, and only a meagre
handful of files had to be removed to make it so.
The AT&T v BSD settlement was basically a loss for AT&T. The original
owner of Unix, armed with a stronger and more restrictive license, was unable to
prevail. I can't imagine why SCO would want to focus the court's attention on
this situation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|