<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr"><br></div><br><div class="gmail_quote"><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_attr">On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 2:31 AM <<a href="mailto:arnold@skeeve.com">arnold@skeeve.com</a>> wrote:<br></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Steve Nickolas <<a href="mailto:usotsuki@buric.co" target="_blank">usotsuki@buric.co</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2024, <a href="mailto:arnold@skeeve.com" target="_blank">arnold@skeeve.com</a> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > Hi All.<br>
> ><br>
> > I'm working on revising my book on basic *nix programming, and for<br>
> > the new chapter on sockets, I want to include some code from 4.2 BSD.<br>
> ><br>
> > Is there a copyright file somewhere for that code? I'm sure it's<br>
> > copyright the Regents of the University of California, but I'd like<br>
> > to include the text of the copyright in the book, so that everything's<br>
> > clear.<br>
> ><br>
> > Thanks!<br>
> ><br>
> > Arnold<br>
> ><br>
><br>
> From what I would ascertain it would, logically, fall under a copyright to <br>
> UCB if it comes from UCB, and under 32V's (questionable) copyright if not.<br>
><br>
> Oldest BSD I have any sort of code for is 4.3 and at least by that point <br>
> most of the Berkeley stuff is marked with this copyright string:<br>
><br>
> /*<br>
> * Copyright (c) 198x Regents of the University of California.<br>
> * All rights reserved. The Berkeley software License Agreement<br>
> * specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution.<br>
> */<br>
><br>
> Some earlier stuff only has the first line.<br>
><br>
> -uso.<br>
<br>
Thanks. But, ... is there some sort of copying permissions to<br>
include also? Or is it the same as 32V and covered by Caldera license?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>No. For 4.2BSD we're firmly in the 'we send this to anybody that has an AT&T</div><div>license only; era, and in such an era, there's not going to be clarity.I don't think the</div><div>regents have made a definitive statement regarding code from this era after the</div><div>historic Unix license from Caldera. The next best thing is looking a the model license</div><div>that most people signed ot get the 4.2BSD tapes and see what that says. A quick google</div><div>search didn't turn up the model 4.2BSD license agreement, but it's likely similar to</div><div><a href="https://cm-bell-labs.github.io/who/dmr/bsdi/BSD_ATT_License.pdf">https://cm-bell-labs.github.io/who/dmr/bsdi/BSD_ATT_License.pdf</a> which sets forth</div><div>the terms of copying within AT&T, but is likely broadly similar to other licensees now</div><div>that either there's no 32V copyright or there's permission to copy 32V for these</div><div>purposes. The most salient part is likely:</div><div><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> Proper Credit and Recognition. In the use of any part of 4.2
BSD and 4.3 BSD, AT&T will give appropriate credit to the
University and the Electrical Engineering and Computer
Sciences Department at the Berkeley Campus of the University
of California and Other Contributors for their roles in its
development and will require sublicensees to give such
credit.
If AT&T is providing documentation similar to that which is
provided with 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, notices similar to those
included in that documentation suffice to satisfy this
requirement. If AT&T is providing new documentation, this</pre><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"> requirement will be satisfied if each document includes the
following statement: 'This software and documentation is
based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software distribution
under license from The Regents of the University of
California. We acknowledge the following individuals and
institutions for their role in its development: [insert
names of individuals and institutions which appear in the
documentation provided to AT&T as part of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD
for those portions of said Distribution used by AT&T.]'</pre><pre style="color:rgb(0,0,0)"><div><br></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">This suggests you should include the phrase above, or one that's similar to it</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">that's more appropriate for the context, to comply with the spirit of what was most likely</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">in those original 4.2BSD agreements. I don't think it will get any better clarity than</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">guessing based on this document that came to light as part of the AT&T litigation.</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">I believe this is independent of the 32V determination because the copyright to the</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">changes hasn't ever been challenged. However, since it's just snippets of code that's</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">otherwise available, and since you're using it in a work that's clearly an academic critique </font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">or criticism of a de-minimis portion of 4.2BSD, it may fall under 'fair use' and not need</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">any specific permission. Given the release of 4.2BSD was 40 years ago or so, and the</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">regents have generally been uninterested in policing the license compliance of 4.2 code,</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">i suspect that an acknowledgement would suffice to keep them from doing anything. It</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">would also comply with the general intent of the licenses and practices at the time and</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">even if all that failed, there's several other reasons that would make such use in your</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">book easily defensible.</font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div><div><font face="arial, sans-serif">Sorry I didn't have a better, easy and clear answer.</font></div>
<font face="arial, sans-serif">Warner</font></pre></div></div></div>