No. For 4.2BSD we're firmly in the 'we send this to anybody that has an AT&T
license only; era, and in such an era, there's not going to be clarity.I don't think the
historic Unix license from Caldera. The next best thing is looking a the model license
that most people signed ot get the 4.2BSD tapes and see what that says. A quick google
search didn't turn up the model 4.2BSD license agreement, but it's likely similar to
the terms of copying within AT&T, but is likely broadly similar to other licensees now
that either there's no 32V copyright or there's permission to copy 32V for these
purposes. The most salient part is likely:
Proper Credit and Recognition. In the use of any part of 4.2
BSD and 4.3 BSD, AT&T will give appropriate credit to the
University and the Electrical Engineering and Computer
Sciences Department at the Berkeley Campus of the University
of California and Other Contributors for their roles in its
development and will require sublicensees to give such
credit.
If AT&T is providing documentation similar to that which is
provided with 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD, notices similar to those
included in that documentation suffice to satisfy this
requirement. If AT&T is providing new documentation, this
requirement will be satisfied if each document includes the
following statement: 'This software and documentation is
based in part on the Fourth Berkeley Software distribution
under license from The Regents of the University of
California. We acknowledge the following individuals and
institutions for their role in its development: [insert
names of individuals and institutions which appear in the
documentation provided to AT&T as part of 4.2 BSD and 4.3 BSD
for those portions of said Distribution used by AT&T.]'
This suggests you should include the phrase above, or one that's similar to it
that's more appropriate for the context, to comply with the spirit of what was most likely
in those original 4.2BSD agreements. I don't think it will get any better clarity than
guessing based on this document that came to light as part of the AT&T litigation.
I believe this is independent of the 32V determination because the copyright to the
changes hasn't ever been challenged. However, since it's just snippets of code that's
otherwise available, and since you're using it in a work that's clearly an academic critique
or criticism of a de-minimis portion of 4.2BSD, it may fall under 'fair use' and not need
any specific permission. Given the release of 4.2BSD was 40 years ago or so, and the
regents have generally been uninterested in policing the license compliance of 4.2 code,
i suspect that an acknowledgement would suffice to keep them from doing anything. It
would also comply with the general intent of the licenses and practices at the time and
even if all that failed, there's several other reasons that would make such use in your
book easily defensible.
Sorry I didn't have a better, easy and clear answer.
Warner