🚀 go-pugleaf

Our 4.2 documentation says that it is copyright and can be reproduced
only under license.  Contrary to what others have said, I don't know
of many computer vendors who allow you to reproduce their manuals
without charge.  However I think that in this case the issue is not
one of charge, but of copyright control.  I believe that selling these
manuals in University bookstores to the public is technically a
violation of the license agreement.  If you check the various
licenses, you will probably find that the University is only allowed
to sell manuals to its students and employees.  This is carried out by
giving the manuals to the bookstore and instructing the manager's pet
poodle to make sure that no one other than authorized people buy the
manual.  The poodle wags its tail, and that is all there is to it.
Since it is not very pratical to check for student ID cards when
selling manuals, and nobody is damaged by having others get copies, no
one worries about any more stringent enforcement.  However there are a
set of people who if you ask them are required to say that the
restriction exists, and who if you notify them of violations may be
required to attempt to stop them (on the legal grounds that if
somebody knows that their rights are being violated and does nothing
about them, they may to a certain extent be considered to be waiving
them).  This means that if enough of a stink is made about this
subject, somebody in ATT may at the very least feel it necessary to
notify the poodle that he has not been carrying out his job.  I think
you will find that the online man pages came on a tape that says it is
copyright and refers to your binary license agreement.  That agreement
almost certainly says that you may produce copies of the documentation
only for your own use.

The problem as I understand it is that some lawyers are afraid that if
you let people reproduce and distribute things without control, you
can lose your copyright.  This can lead to practices such as vendors
asking you to place a notice on the cover saying "Only available to
Rutgers students, faculty, and staff", but not to make any attempt to
enforce it, or to license fees of $0.01 per copy (not per page -- per
copy of the entire document) for which no one bothers to issue an
invoice.  From what I know of the licensing agreements, Usenix is
correctly interpreting them.  If I were a Usenix officer, I would
continue to follow a strict interpretation of the agreements.  Usenix
might ask the relevant lawyers how much enforcement they want.
Perhaps it could be agreed that it would be enough to say in all
announcements that these manuals are available only to users at
licensed sites.  This would solve the problem of getting things to
individual Usenix members.

I will not discuss in this forum what I think of a legal system that
requires this kind of malarky.

>>See, the problem here is twofold: First, the manuals are licensed
>>materials -- you have to show your license to get them.
>>...
>
>Is this true? I don't believe it. You need a full set of licenses
>qualifying you to own 4.3bsd sources just to buy a printed manual?
>
>What is this lunacy? Does anyone know for sure?

I'm not *completely* sure, so maybe I shouldn't be answering at all,
but as I remember, the problem is this.  The Unix manuals are copyrighted.
My copy of the 4.2BSD manual (which is what I have handy - I rember the
same phrasing in 4.3) says

	Copyright 1979, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated.
	Holders of a UNIX(TM)/32V software license are permitted to
	copy this document, or any portion of it, as necessary for
	licensed use of the software, providing this copyright notice
	and statement of permission are included.

The Usenix Association *does not* have a license for this software.
They have an agreement with the Regents of the University of California,
specifying that Usenix is the Regents' agent for reproduction of
manuals.  This agreement specifies that Usenix may sell only to
appropriately licensed parties.  The agreement was, as I understand it,
approved by AT&T.  There are some further terms that the purchase of
manuals from Usenix entails as well.  I remember the order form having
some sort of release on it stating that the *purchaser* - in addition
to being properly licenses - designated Usenix as its *sole* agent for
reproduction of these manuals.  (These other terms may have changed,
or I may be remembering them incorrectly.  It's been a long time
since I looked at them.)

-- 
Ed Gould                    mt Xinu, 2560 Ninth St., Berkeley, CA  94710  USA
{ucbvax,decvax}!mtxinu!ed   +1 415 644 0146

"A man of quality is not threatened by a woman of equality."

In regard to having to show a license in order to buy a UNIX
manual, let me just add this note.  The System V manuals (both
volumes) were the selection of the month in the "Library of
Computer and Information Sciences" book club not too long ago
and as far as I know they are still listed in their current
selections list.  Are you going to tell me that if you order
the manuals they are going to call you up and ask you to send
them a copy of your UNIX license?

I realize that SysV is not 4.3BSD but my understanding of the
situation is that the main cause of the BSD licensing problems
is the fact that the BSD code is derived from the ATT code.
Therefore, if you can buy the ATT manual over the counter (or
through the mail in this case) you should be able to do the
same for the BSD manuals.

-- 
	Dave Brierley; Raytheon Co.; Portsmouth RI; (401)-847-8000 x4073
	{ allegra, gatech, ihnp4, linus!raybed2 } !rayssd!dhb