Return to BSD News archive
Path: sserve!manuel!munnari.oz.au!hp9000.csc.cuhk.hk!uakari.primate.wisc.edu!caen!destroyer!uunet!ccicpg!mbf!fmt
From: fmt@mbf.UUCP (Mike Trimberger)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd
Subject: Re: Should I get the AT&T source?
Message-ID: <150210@mbf.UUCP>
Date: 29 Jul 92 16:46:02 GMT
References: <1992Jul27.230708.17974@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu>
Organization: MAI Systems Corp.
Lines: 23
In article <1992Jul27.230708.17974@constellation.ecn.uoknor.edu> ben@rex.chb.uokhsc.edu (Benjamin Z. Goldsteen) writes:
>
> The place where I work can get the AT&T souce for like $200 (.edu).
>However, I don't want to be limited by this. Will I be prevented from
>writing in an OS in the future (theoretically?) What if I don't sign a
>non-diclosure agreement, but "somehow" gain access to the sources?
>What are the implications of this?
>
>Thanks
It looks as if ATT has already started the paranoia and uncertanty that
they wanted - just by filing the lawsuit. What about me? The Co where
I work has an ATT 3.2 licence but I haven't worked on or even looked at
any of the code. Can ATT look at the Co's where I worked and say that I
have been tainted by their proprietary code?
PS: Gaining access to the ATT code with appropriate disclosure and licence
is called _theft_. No one would steal any of ATT's code, would they?
--
F. Michael Trimberger MAI Systems Corp.
fmt%mbf.uucp@ics.uci.edu 14192 Franklin Ave
or: {ucivax,uunet!ccicpg,sequent}!mbf!fmt Tustin, Ca 92680
[system administrator in training - sink or swim method] (714) 730-2934