Nondisclosure clause in SCO license

From owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au Tue Dec 15 09:20:23 1998
Received: (from major@localhost)
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) id JAA15448
	for pups-liszt; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:19:28 +1100 (EST)
Received: from fudge.uchicago.edu (fudge.uchicago.edu [128.135.136.68])
	by minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id JAA15443
	for < pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au>; Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:19:20 +1100 (EST)
Received: (from eric@localhost) by fudge.uchicago.edu (8.7.5/8.7.3) id QAA03614; Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:17:04 -0600 (CST)
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 1998 16:17:04 -0600 (CST)
From: Eric Fischer < eric@fudge.uchicago.edu>
Message-Id: <199812142217.QAA03614@fudge.uchicago.edu>
To: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
Subject: nondisclosure clause in SCO license
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

Does anyone know how serious SCO is about enforcing the nondisclosure
clause from the Ancient Unix license?  I'm referring to this one:

   8.4 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the
   SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement in confidence for
   SCO.  LICENSEE further agrees that should it make such disclosure
   of any or all of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS (including methods or
   concepts utilized therein) to anyone to whom such disclosure is
   necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder,
   LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each such person to whom any
   such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in
   confidence and shall be kept in confidence and have each such
   person sign a confidentiality agreement containing restrictions
   on disclosure substantially similar to those set forth herein.

So if I mention to someone that (for instance) the Sixth Edition
version of ed didn't have the "j" command but it was in PWB and the
Seventh Edition, and I know this from reading the source code, are the
SCO police going to come after me?

eric

From: Warren Toomey < wkt@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Message-Id: <199812142223.JAA04880@henry.cs.adfa.oz.au>
Subject: Re: nondisclosure clause in SCO license
To: eric@fudge.uchicago.edu (Eric Fischer)
Date: Tue, 15 Dec 1998 09:23:22 +1100 (EST)
Cc: pups@minnie.cs.adfa.oz.au
In-Reply-To: <199812142217.QAA03614@fudge.uchicago.edu> from Eric Fischer at "Dec 14, 98 04:17:04 pm"
Reply-To: wkt@cs.adfa.oz.au
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: owner-pups@minnie.cs.adfa.edu.au
Precedence: bulk

In article by Eric Fischer:
> Does anyone know how serious SCO is about enforcing the nondisclosure
> clause from the Ancient Unix license?  I'm referring to this one:
> 
>    8.4 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the
>    SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this Agreement in confidence for
>    SCO.  LICENSEE further agrees that should it make such disclosure
>    of any or all of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS (including methods or
>    concepts utilized therein) to anyone to whom such disclosure is
>    necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder,
>    LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each such person to whom any
>    such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in
>    confidence and shall be kept in confidence and have each such
>    person sign a confidentiality agreement containing restrictions
>    on disclosure substantially similar to those set forth herein.
> 
> So if I mention to someone that (for instance) the Sixth Edition
> version of ed didn't have the "j" command but it was in PWB and the
> Seventh Edition, and I know this from reading the source code, are the
> SCO police going to come after me?
> 
> eric

I hope not Eric. I'll ask SCO for their impressions, and will pass them
back on to the mailing list.

	Warren