revised time quantization package (Unix & WIN32) available

[Jim Thompson]

>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 at 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