AT&T Spokesman Matt Blaze writes: blah blah
There are (basically) no restrictions on the use or distribution of the (very simple) code.
This is simply untrue. Read the fine print in the file. Use this code and you owe them big. They'll "reach out and touch" you big time.
You're wrong. Direct from the shar file: X/* X * Simple Unix time quantization package X * {mab,lacy}@research.att.com X * v1.0 - 12/95 X * X * WIN32 port v0.1 fod@brd.ie 12/95 X * X * TESTED ONLY UNDER SUNOS 4.x and BSDI 2.0. X * X * WIN32 port TESTED ONLY UNDER WINDOWS '95 X * (further testing recommended) X * Requires Winmm.lib X * X * This is unsupported software. Use at own risk. X * Test carefully on new platforms. X */ X/* X * The authors of this software are Matt Blaze and Jack Lacy X * Copyright (c) 1995 by AT&T Bell Laboratories. X * X * WIN32 port by Frank O'Dwyer X * Copyright (c) 1995 by Rainbow Diamond Limited X * X * Permission to use, copy, and modify this software without fee is X * hereby granted, provided that this entire notice is included in all X * copies of any software which is or includes a copy or modification X * of this software and in all copies of the supporting documentation X * for such software. X * X * THIS SOFTWARE IS BEING PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR X * IMPLIED WARRANTY. IN PARTICULAR, NEITHER THE AUTHORS NOR AT&T X * NOR RAINBOW DIAMOND LIMITED MAKE ANY REPRESENTATION OR WARRANTY X * OF ANY KIND CONCERNING THE MERCHANTABILITY OF THIS SOFTWARE OR X * ITS FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE. X */ Nothing, but nothing in there restricts you from doing anything you like with the software, as long as you provide attributation.
If they were serious, they'd gpl it.
Maybe they don't like the terms of the gpl? Maybe they don't want to restrict *you* to having to give it away? (And before you jump my ass for being anti-gnu, go check the various GNU sources for work I've submitted in the past.)
I don't understand why this group continues to tolerate these blatently commercial messages from att (and netscape.) (The message is really just an ad for the cryptolib product, as it says). I've also said this b4 but I'll say it again: why would anyone in their right mind trust binary code from att after the clipper fiasco.
Is this where we point out that it was Young Master Blaze who pointed out the technical failure in Clipper?
And why do we tolerate Jeff Weinstein and Mat Blaze calling themselves cypherpunks, when they are so clearly just working us for their corporate interests? I wonder how much they get paid to monitor this list?
"Cypherpunks write code." (Where is yours?) Jim