🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 1 Aug 90 14:03:32 GMT
   From: Ray.Nickson@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Ray Nickson)

   Extract from:
   P1003.2a/Draft 5, 5 June 1990

      Clause 5.5: compress - Compress data
      Editor's Note: ...We are in the process of obtaining a letter from the
      Unisys legal department that acknowledges POSIX.2's reference to the
      patented algorithm and commits to license the use of the algorithm to
      all POSIX.2 system providers on an unrestricted, equal-access basis
      for a "reasonable" fee.  Such a letter would meet the IEEE's
      requorements for specifying patented technology in a standard...

This is key.  I don't know what they consider reasonable, but I'm
pretty sure that they unfortunately would not press for unrestricted
distribution.  

      It is not possible for the P1003 group or the IEEE to negotiate with
      the patent holder on the on the specific terms of the license
      agreement or on the size of the reasonable fee; this might be
      considered a violation of US antitrust laws.  

However this second clause probably gives the way out: If Unisys leans
on someone like the FSF then some congressmen should get a letter
pointing out that a large defense contractor is attempting to squeeze
even more money out of the DoD by demanding royalty payments on a
piece of free software.  See, DoD procurement regs MANDATE adherence
to standards if they exist.  In the current climate this ought to go
over well.

   If ideas are copyrightable, and user interfaces are copyrightable,
   then AT&T/Bell Labs presumably hold a cpr on the entire Unix
   interface---this is what we're worried about for GNU.  How would this
   effect the standards effort?  How can something that could at a later
   date be copy restricted be the subject of a standard?

Don't worry; the unix user interface (what there is of it) predated
The US' signing the Berne agreement (which swapped the copyright
default from off to on).