On Sun, Oct 13, 2024 at 2:31 AM <arnold(a)skeeve.com> wrote: 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 regents have made a definitive statement regarding code from this era after 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 https://cm-bell-labs.github.io/who/dmr/bsdi/BSD_ATT_License.pdf which sets forth 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