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