🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9202101804.AA29057@corwin.barra.com> marc@barra.COM (Marc Berkowitz) writes:

   > Take a look in the Ultrix /usr/include, and you will see most of the
   > header files are BSD header files, complete with their Regents
   > copyright notices, but with an obnoxious DEC copyright notice in
   > front.

   If these files were copyrighted by the University of California, how
   is it possible for DEC to claim copyright too?

Two possible reasons:  

First, DEC probably made some small changes to some of them.  The DEC
copyright is *in addition* to the UCB copyright; it does not replace
it.  The DEC copyright is contradictory to the GPL, so they could not
do the same thing with FSF code, which is the whole point.

Second, where they made no modifications, or ones not significant
enough to allow copyright, DEC is still entitled to *claim* copyright.
The US law does not limit your ability to claim any kind of copyright
you want.  Most people are not aware, for example, that non-profit
loaning of recorded music is legal in the US.  They read the legend on
CD's which says "Unauthorized copying, hiring, lending, public
performance and broadcasting of this record prohibited!" and conclude
that the publisher must be telling the truth.  Non-profit lending, as
well as some kinds of copying and hiring can count as fair use, and be
quite legal.  In other words, DEC is claiming copyright.  Whether they
*have* copyright is a completely different issue.  

	-mib