Hi i joined this list as I found some intersting stuff in its archives and I am working on my Phd in law concerning the logic and rhetoric of FOSS and i thought maybe the list would be a good source of knowledgable information. I am currently proofing a draft thesis chapter I have put together on the early history of Unix and have a question or two arising from text of the early licences. The 1974 licence to the Catholic University in Holland (I guess this was to Andy Tanenbaum) has a confidentiality clause in it. I presume this was a standard clause. That is interesting from lots of perspectives - the myth of a unix commons, which we both know is a myth in the GNUish sense although people like Lessig still say it in their tomes; and from the perspective that copyright or patents where not used to cover the code but confidential inofrmation - this resonates with my work with Aboriginal artists in Australia and their communal system of knowledge production and with the notion of trust and equity which I am building towards in this research. But right now what interests me is a bit more in the context of contemporary "licence fetishism" or the way licences and IP were viewed back then. I am sort of trying to deal with the way that many commentators (like Lessig, Wayner and even Raymond) credit changes in unix and linux to legal command. I just don't buy that but position them more in the context of the globalisation of production. Anyway, the question - the licences prohibited dissemination of Unix to third parties - eg in the case of universities the system could only be given/shown to students and employees. How then was the question of bugs, fixes and updates dealt with? Did everything come back to Bell and then get dealt with from there. IE the question of who controllled "R&D"? Did universities talk directly to each other? And if so when did this become a problem for AT&T? If at all? If they did was there any conception that they were breaking the licence conditions? I am also intrigued about Raymond's comment that Ken quietly shipped out copies of the program with a note "love Ken". Is this based in fact? was it a covert operation? And is it tied into the matter of turning a blind eye to licence conditions eg the unis talking to each other directly? Is that clear? If the uni's were talking to each other and Ken was sending out gift wrapped parcels ......... maybe there was a commons but not one annointed by law..... Thanks Martin