Posted on March 24, 1999 at 8:28:27 PM Central.
It isn't clear to me how the license would affect code written in another language (e.g. Java) that uses algorithms and ideas from the reference library but no actual code. I think this would be considered a derivative work, but distributing Java source files as a patch against some C++ code seems impractical; the source trees wouldn't have anything in common. In fact, section 3.4 seems to preclude alternate implementations that contain no AT&T code. This is reminiscent of the 60% clause in the Jikes license.
Section 3.3 of the license is distasteful, because it doesn't refer to the actual software. I also assume that it isn't strictly necessary to mention such matters in the license, since AT&T's trademarks are presumably already adequately protected.
Section 7.2 is a problem, because my rights to use the source could vanish at any moment. I would prefer that the unenforceable parts of the license simply be nullified with the rest continuing to hold, as in Apple's APSL.
Wesley Felter, not a lawyer