5 ms·

I was hoping this would also go into whether AT&T actually acted to enforce this copyright, as copyright covers "The work" and "significant subsets", but will n

I was hoping this would also go into whether AT&T actually acted to enforce this copyright, as copyright covers "The work" and "significant subsets", but will not cover things like newlines. For that kind of content (as well as "int i= 0" and the like) there is both prior art, and the claimed-copied content cannot be used to identify the work, and where in that work, the line would have been lifted from. The article seems mostly about the fact that AT&T intentionally added a copyright notice in their otherwise empty program's comment block, in an era that predates the era of widespread availability of software and copyright wars. Which is honestly not really all that surprising.

cat199 9y ago
> The article seems mostly about the fact that AT&T intentionally added a copyright notice in their otherwise empty program's comment block, in an era that predates the era of widespread availability of software and copyright wars. Which is honestly not really all that surprising. This page was likely written exactly because of the 'era of widespread availability of software and copyright wars' - e.g. the statement: "One of the fun examples among all the copyright fuss" combined with the edit dates (90,93) seem to me to indicate this was written exactly as a response to the UCB vs USL suit.. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc._v._Berkeley_Software_Design,_Inc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UNIX_System_Laboratories,_Inc..... as well as the 'unix wars' https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unix_wars