From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.6 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_INVALID,DKIM_SIGNED, HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,HTML_MESSAGE,LOTS_OF_MONEY, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (minnie.tuhs.org [IPv6:2600:3c01:e000:146::1]) by inbox.vuxu.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1FA7E24C88 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 20:59:30 +0100 (CET) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D720343259; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:59:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-yw1-x112d.google.com (mail-yw1-x112d.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::112d]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 189E643256 for ; Mon, 11 Mar 2024 05:59:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-yw1-x112d.google.com with SMTP id 00721157ae682-60a068e26d8so25354847b3.3 for ; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 12:59:24 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ccc.com; s=google; t=1710100763; x=1710705563; darn=tuhs.org; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=YQ7wFWBXl7Uiyvfwkn6KxIKezwTY57H0D8Bib4NIIfg=; b=YCnoy0m+sPU2A3IyTIP+FdXs5KjATUpWvJc8e55S84TYhF/bvgYfRWbDL4ZILVIOGI UenTCZBhjd0jwLDtEg+uVC8ZmDSFU4DH67IRZPBPF6iy4x6SrMzDINzKPzJbVRqCdUkr +bznBeOLDShYH0CitiuLitYNYPQ5ra2+E/z+c= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1710100763; x=1710705563; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id :reply-to; bh=YQ7wFWBXl7Uiyvfwkn6KxIKezwTY57H0D8Bib4NIIfg=; b=NsIuDNLYyI2sK3Mg4XQb+SN8sE5PERqcs4I+tqxwsngUmZzfI4NlslidHYyvyVjYND TPIBJMRqA8k9IP3lpnJgbLuUK0x6KTCSCiD6LO5xUaXkAPMg3uAY9TImeqGtJJwxWzcV AqxuOVBWZldBZ0Yn3u9+cMuBEdPKc/PiluHS2rqVkGaSwf1b5+6GZeksfd4QaDEfuYW5 MVJTMuI7xSvmQ+WPiobcfF9AoH4HdW3A6rabdUjPhu+E2c/p8yN03V3tRxvpK2OKYVqD 3pmDVfo31l/4rosEjf/yCHi11MPBOQ4B6EV5PIT+YtFpXNLAizPfCUjeKkbuMrCFON+f 4VUA== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwVsJ4c1PQ/xog3vqLlMLkgiar2KtCQrd+0kWyyRKKBUt2CJP7k AbMSPX1SsiX6Tu2MaEJrygx672RsTXSw+y/0gHTTbInQTZcoFcO2CQKi0ROiWYiGMAsMQLGe0P6 vWQ6Y8txaLUUn5lcO3niLvH3yMd/0O5CazFYfTYYpFLyAKazz8Q== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGZ5v3v9J6tvpwwC2EtUXrTjxobJA+Vw9h/dRl+KDITXKeXCyQcJRqfZP0of7rdBpSCsp7WI0Vc3aEz+oA/Xjk= X-Received: by 2002:a0d:ca14:0:b0:60a:3c9e:3d43 with SMTP id m20-20020a0dca14000000b0060a3c9e3d43mr782993ywd.10.1710100762700; Sun, 10 Mar 2024 12:59:22 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <606871377.2352922.1709955781555@mail.yahoo.com> <84A5C4DC-E9E7-46F7-AA6C-AADD64ACD305@icloud.com> In-Reply-To: From: Clem Cole Date: Sun, 10 Mar 2024 15:58:46 -0400 Message-ID: To: steve jenkin Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000007dcaa0061353dcba" Message-ID-Hash: 3K5T2IX7LCPDOOLL2UX2WF74R3OOGRMJ X-Message-ID-Hash: 3K5T2IX7LCPDOOLL2UX2WF74R3OOGRMJ X-MailFrom: clemc@ccc.com X-Mailman-Rule-Misses: dmarc-mitigation; no-senders; approved; emergency; loop; banned-address; member-moderation; nonmember-moderation; administrivia; implicit-dest; max-recipients; max-size; news-moderation; no-subject; digests; suspicious-header CC: Computer Old Farts Followers X-Mailman-Version: 3.3.6b1 Precedence: list Subject: [COFF] Re: [ih] Fwd: Some Berkeley Unix history - too many PHDs per packet List-Id: Computer Old Farts Forum Archived-At: List-Archive: List-Help: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: --0000000000007dcaa0061353dcba Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable below... [Dropping IH list]. On Sun, Mar 10, 2024 at 6:05=E2=80=AFAM steve jenkin wrote: > > > > On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:52, Clem Cole wrote: > > > > That said, a different license for UNIX-based IP could be granted by th= e > Regents of the University of CA and managed by its 'Industrial Laison's > Office" at UCB (the 'IOL' - the same folks that brought licenses for tool= s > like SPICE, SPLICE, MOTIS, et al). > I'm not sure if you are catching that the Regents IOL (Industrial Laison's Office) [part of the UCB EE Department] and the DARPA=E2=80=99s IP= TO (Information Processing Technology Office) - which was originally part of the US Air Force, then US DOD,* etc*.. [and went through a number of name changes]. The latter group originally led and managed a small part of the US Gov DOD projects. Its history is best spelled out in Katie Hafner's wonderful book: "*Where Wizards Stay Up Late*" - ISBN 9780684832678. (More in a minute). The former, the IOL, managed the external relationships for the EE Department (and later EECS when they created the CS division of EE). It was set up initially in the latter part of the 1960s by my thesis advisor, the late Donald O Pederson(*a.k.a.*dop) --- and, as I said, the folks that brought you SPICE, SPLICE, and the like]. It already had a way to license and distribute technology from EE to external organizations [using an idea that would later be called 'open source.' He was famous for saying, *"Unli= ke our friends across the bay or on the east coast, we give everything away. That way, I get to go in the back door and see what they are doing. If I sell our tools, I use the front door like all salesmen."* The circa 1977 "Berkeley Software Distribution" for UNIX came from the IOL, as did other distributions they had been managing since about 1967 or so. > > In the last while I=E2=80=99ve read about DARPA=E2=80=99s IPTO (Informati= on Processing > Technology Office) 1962-1986 > and how they (generously) funded a very diverse range of projects for > extended durations. > > Alan Kay comments that $1M was small beer to DARPA, who were investing > billions in R&D every year. Be careful. The US government, via DOD (and DOE), was funding billions, while DARPA was a small and mostly forgotten backwater the USAF originally had set up. As I said, see Katie Hafner's book for more details. $1M was a big deal to DARPA. But compared to funding a new fighter or a new air craft carrier, DARPA projects were small potatoes. > > > It was a boom time for US computing research - funders with vision, deep > pockets and patience :) > No, the boom was the Cold War and the space race. That was driving core tech. CS Research just hitched its wagon to those engines. Things like the ARPANet were funded to solve what the ARMY called the 'radar problem.: How(during a nuclear strike) are you able to keep disparate command centers informed and in sync? > > I can=E2=80=99t find my source now, nor any list of IPTO=E2=80=99s contra= cts given to UCB > ( or given to anyone ). > > UCB - Berkeley - got many contracts, time-sharing / SDS-940, Ingres, > TCP/IP in the Unix kernel and RISC processing. > Yikes -- having lived it. I fear you may be confusing and mixing some things up - certainly order, and what beget what. First, UCB was very late to the DARPA world. Note that the first ARPAnet IMP semi-available to UCB was at LBL (up the hill). And while the Regents ran LBL, LANL, Los Almos, and the like (for DOE, mind you, not DOD). Furthermore by the time of CSRG, CSRG did not have the contract for IP/TCP for UNIX -- BBN did. *C= SRG had a contract from DARPA to support the UNIX kernel.* These are the sources of famous issues and questions WRT created. The concept of sockets(2) was a CSRG [Bill Joy ism -- actually to counter Rashid's ports() idea in Accent]. The IP stack (and support) *was supposed *to be from BBN (and it originally was -- you can see at least one early BBN distribution in the TUHS archives. BTW, Ingres was partially funded by DOD via DARPA and predates CSRG by about 4 or 5 years. Fateman got a contract to move MAXIMA from ITS to UNIX (and create Franz LISP). This was the origin of the original kernel work. Frankly, I don't remember who funded that; but I'm not sure it was DARPA. I think it may have been one of the national labs (DOE) that was using Maxima. FWIW: the Ingres ARPAnet connection was a 'very distant host' interface to one of the 4 ports on the LBL IMP. I'm not sure who funded Patterson during the RISC work. I know my thesis was funded by industrial folks as as well as DOE grant, not a DOD one. I just thought of another interesting factiod. Mind you, the BSD sources were free - which I'm sure caused a number of UNIX vendors to stop there (per dop's genius of going in the back door) since BBN was a commercial enterprise (and as such was looking for revenue streams ). The BBN stack actually cost money for commercial firms. In the early 1990s, when we decided to use it, not the UCB code, at Stellar, we had a get a sublicense for it from BBN. > > There was an IPTO director - Bob Taylor or Robert Kahn - that wanted a > common development platform with IP plus development tools, > who gave contracts to UCB=E2=80=99s CSRG to do the work. > Ouch ... that is not quite right. Again - get Katie's book. CSRG is >>much much<< later in the DARPA (or Internet story). By the time of CSRG, DARPA had moved inside of DOD a few times. It was not nearly the size of the other teams, but it was a real line item. As Alan Kay said, it was not even noticed when the original work started compared to other DOD projects. But the problem you are running into is that it was a multifold set of problems - which are often hard to untangle. While I'm not sure how well it worked in practice, the "justification" for the ARPAnet was to share expensive resources owned by the USG and supplied to DOD/DOE contractors. DOD and DOE were paying for lots of computing power at lots of places. DOE used almost anything they could get their hands on - particularly in the scientific processing area, but the CS Research types had started migrating to the PDP-10 for their specific serious work. However, with the PDP-10, there were N different OSs in use. DARPA knows it costs the >>USG<< less if the users operated with a DEC-supplied SW stack, but their CS researcher seems to do more projects with more enhanced OS. BBN has managed to get DEC to pick up its own PDP-10 system and migrate the 'default' OS to be based on theirs (FWIW: DEC is less impressed with ITS and WAITS in those days for commercial reasons - I'm not going to go down that rathole). The reader might try to remember that, as a general rule, DARPA and the rest of the US government teams are trying not to fund what we might call "*core OS Research."* In 1983, DEC "discontinued" development and no longer offered for sale the PDP-10 in favor of its now widely popular VAX series. DARPA switched to Vax as the platform it will supply to its contractors (DOD and DOE, as well as other depts, offered different systems). However, with the vax as a common platform for the DARPA contractor, there was still a need for some system extensions like ports/sockets for different research projects DARPA is funding. The research community has started to switch to UNIX. But DARPA is concerned about AT&T's "abandoning the OS on the doorstep" scheme. So the question was, how to get UNIX supported on Vax, Since the version of UNIX being used on the VAX by >>much<< but not all of the DOD and DOE community was BSD, DARPA's solution was let a contract to create a support group - CSRG was born. > This story implies DARPA helped arrange Unix licences with the many > defence contractors, albeit they only need binaries for BSD. > I did not imply that, nor do I think DARPA did. I think other parts of US GOV did >>sometimes<< have access to the UNIX IP by means other than the traditional license scheme from AT&T/WE Patent and Licensing group -- i.e. Otis Wilson *et al *(we have evidence of the same). For instance, Ford Aer= o was doing a joint project with AT&T for NASA [NASA is now an independent agency, but I wonder if that was always true]. Ford Aero is known to have had special access [and there seems to be evidence this was based on PWB 1.0 - which never was formally released outside of the Bell System]. There have been other discussions that when other parts of Ford Motor wanted to use UNIX, the Ford Aero folks were unable to help them. We also know that Rand was an original (1960s) DARPA contractor [back to its origin story as a research office inside the Air Force]. When the folks from Harvard went to Rand and wanted to use UNIX, the first commercial license was created by AT&T. And we know that story. There is evidence that some US government contractors, such as BBN, were in a grey zone. I'll try to get some enlightenment from some of the BBN UNIX folks I know. From discussions, it >>seems<< like the first version of UNIX made its way into BBN and was part of a US Gov contract, probably shared with ATT. But by the time of CSRG, BBN definitely had traditionally commercial source licenses. We also know that Ford became a traditional licensee but started in a place different from others [particularly if the reports of using PWB 1.0 were true -- that distribution was not available from the AT&T/WE patent and license group]. > If the Internet Society=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98brief history=E2=80=99 is to b= e believed, Defence > declared Unix a =E2=80=99standard=E2=80=99 (for which work?) in 1980. > Please be careful here. The IP based on the UNIX ideas was not a USG standard for any department until FIPS-151 was published post IEEE P1003.1 - which was all in the 1980s. That said, there was often an *operational standard *in many US government departments, including DOD, by the early 1980s; based on a preference for a flavor of UNIX by many users, particularly researchers. Furthermore, IP/TCP was the DOD's operational standard by the early 1980s, but by the mid-1980s, DOD's DDN and DOC had picked ISO/OSI and GMAP specifications over the IP family [and we all know how that played out in the end]. A number of us in the industry at the time we scrambling how to bring an ISO/OSI stack out on our products for the USG and the Auto/Aerospace customers who were telling us they would not order equipment without [and, of course, the folks in the EU were pushing X.25 and the rest of ISO to counter IP's take off]. Metcalf's law would cause IP to win out (i.e., economic reasons), but understand there is a difference between an official standard and what was actually occurring. --0000000000007dcaa0061353dcba Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
below...=C2=A0= =C2=A0[Dropping IH list].

On Sun, Mar = 10, 2024 at 6:05=E2=80=AFAM steve jenkin <sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au> wrote:


> On 10 Mar 2024, at 06:52, Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:
>
> That said, a different license for UNIX-based IP could be granted by t= he Regents of the University of CA and managed by its=C2=A0 'Industrial= Laison's Office" at UCB (the 'IOL' - the same folks that = brought licenses for tools like SPICE, SPLICE, MOTIS, et al).
I'm not sure if you are catc= hing that the Regents IOL (Industrial Laison's=C2=A0Office) [part of th= e UCB EE Department] and the=C2=A0DARPA=E2=80=99s IPTO (Information Process= ing Technology Office) - which=C2=A0was originally part of the US Air Force= , then US DOD, etc.. [and went through a number of name changes].=C2= =A0 =C2=A0The latter group originally led and managed a small part of the U= S Gov DOD projects.=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Its history is best spelled out in Katie H= afner's wonderful book: "Where Wizards Stay Up Late" -= ISBN=C2=A09780684832678. (More i= n a minute).

<= /span>
The=C2=A0former, the IOL,= managed the external relationships for the EE Department (and later EECS w= hen they created the=C2=A0CS division of EE).=C2=A0 It was set up initially= in the latter part of the 1960s by my thesis=C2=A0advisor, the late Donald= O Pederson(a.k.a.dop) ---=C2=A0 and, as I said, the folks that brou= ght you SPICE, SPLICE, and the like].=C2=A0 =C2=A0It already had a way to l= icense and distribute technology from EE to external organizations [using a= n idea that would later be called 'open source.'=C2=A0 He=C2=A0was = famous for=C2=A0saying, "Unlike our fri= ends=C2=A0across the bay or on the east coast, we give everything away.=C2= =A0 That way, I get to go in the back door and see what they are doing.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0If I sell our tools, I use the front door like all salesmen."= ;=C2=A0 =C2=A0The circa 1977 "Berkeley Software Distribution"= for UNIX came from the IOL, as did other distributions they had been manag= ing since about 1967 or so.


=C2= =A0

In the last while I=E2=80=99ve read about DARPA=E2=80=99s IPTO (Information= Processing Technology Office) 1962-1986
=C2=A0and how they (generously) funded a very diverse range of projects for= extended durations.

Alan Kay comments that $1M was small beer to DARPA, who were investing bill= ions in R&D every year.
Be careful. The US government, via DOD (and DOE), was funding billions= , while DARPA was a small and mostly forgotten backwater the USAF originall= y had set up. As I said, see Katie Hafner's book for more details. $1M = was a big deal to DARPA. But compared to funding a new fighter or a new air= craft carrier, DARPA projects were=C2=A0small potatoes.<= /font>


It was a boom time for US computing research - funders with vision, deep po= ckets and patience :)
<= span class=3D"gmail_default" style=3D"font-family:arial,helvetica,sans-seri= f">No, the boom was the Cold War and the space race.=C2=A0 That = was driving core tech.=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0CS Research just hitche= d its wagon to those engines.=C2=A0 Things like the ARPANet were funded to = solve what the ARMY called the 'radar problem.:=C2=A0 How(during a nucl= ear strike) are you able to keep disparate command centers informed and in = sync?

I can=E2=80=99t find my source now, nor any list of IPTO=E2=80=99s contract= s given to UCB ( or given to anyone ).

UCB - Berkeley - got many contracts, time-sharing / SDS-940, Ingres, TCP/IP= in the Unix kernel and RISC processing.
Yikes -- having lived=C2=A0it. I fear you = may be confusing and mixing some things up - certainly order, and what bege= t what.=C2=A0 First, UCB was very late to the DARPA world. Note that the fi= rst ARPAnet IMP semi-available to UCB was at LBL (up the hill).=C2=A0 =C2= =A0 And while the Regents ran LBL, LANL, Los Almos,=C2=A0and the like (for = DOE, mind you, not DOD).=C2=A0 Furthermore=C2=A0by the time of CSRG, CSRG d= id not have the contract for IP/TCP for UNIX -- BBN did.=C2=A0 CSRG h= ad a contract from DARPA to support the UNIX kernel. These are the = sources of famous issues and questions WRT created.=C2=A0 The concept of so= ckets(2) was a CSRG [Bill Joy ism -- actually to counter Rashid's ports= () idea in Accent].=C2=A0 =C2=A0The IP stack (and support) was supposed = to be from BBN (and it originally was -- you can see at least one early= BBN distribution in the TUHS archives.=C2=A0 BTW, Ingres was partially fun= ded by DOD via DARPA and predates CSRG by about 4 or 5 years.=C2=A0 Fateman= got a contract to move MAXIMA from ITS to UNIX (and create Franz LISP).=C2= =A0 =C2=A0This was the origin of the original kernel work.=C2=A0 Frankly, I= don't remember who funded that; but I'm not sure it was DARPA.=C2= =A0 I think it may have been one of the national labs (DOE) that was using= =C2=A0Maxima.=C2=A0 FWIW: the Ingres ARPAnet connection was a=C2=A0 've= ry distant host' interface to one of the 4 ports on the LBL IMP.=

= I'm not sure who funded Patterson during th= e RISC work.=C2=A0 I know my thesis was funded by industrial folks as as we= ll as=C2=A0DOE grant, not a DOD one.

I ju= st thought of another interesting factiod.=C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0Mind yo= u, the BSD sources were free - which I'm sure caused a number of UNIX v= endors to stop there (per dop's genius of going in the back door) since= BBN was a commercial enterprise (and as such was looking for revenue stre= ams ).=C2=A0 =C2=A0T= he BBN stack actually cost= money for co= mmercial firms.=C2=A0 =C2=A0In the early 1990s, when we decided to use it, = not the UCB code, at Stellar, we had a get a sublicense for it from BBN.

=C2=A0

There was an IPTO director - Bob Taylor or Robert Kahn - that wanted a comm= on development platform with IP plus development tools,
who gave contracts to UCB=E2=80=99s CSRG to do the work.
Ouch ... that is not quite right.=C2= =A0 Again - get Katie's book.

CSRG = is >>much much<< later in the DARPA (or Internet story).=C2=A0 = By the time of CSRG, DARPA had moved inside of DOD a few times.=C2=A0 It wa= s not nearly the size of the other teams, but it was a real line item. As A= lan Kay said, it was not even noticed when the original work started compar= ed to other DOD projects.

But the problem = you are=C2=A0running into is that it was a multifold set of problems - whic= h are often hard to=C2=A0untangle.=C2=A0 While I'm not sure how well it= =C2=A0worked in practice, the "justification" for the ARPAnet was= to share expensive resources owned=C2=A0by the USG and supplied to DOD/DOE= contractors. DOD and DOE were paying for lots of computing power at lots o= f places.=C2=A0 DOE used almost anything they could get their hands on - pa= rticularly in the scientific=C2=A0processing area, but the CS Research type= s had started migrating to the PDP-10 for their specific serious work.=C2= =A0 =C2=A0However, with the PDP-10, there were N different OSs in use.=C2= =A0 DARPA knows it costs the >>USG<< less if the users operated= with a DEC-supplied SW stack, but their CS researcher seems to do more pro= jects with more enhanced OS.=C2=A0 BBN has managed to get DEC to pick up it= s own PDP-10 system and migrate the 'default' OS to be based on the= irs (FWIW: DEC is less impressed with ITS and WAITS in those days for comme= rcial reasons - I'm not going to go down that rathole). The reader migh= t try to remember that, as a general rule, DARPA and the rest of the US gov= ernment teams are trying not to fund what we might call "core=C2= =A0OS Research."

In 1983, DEC "discontinued"= development and no longer offered for=C2=A0sale the PDP-10 in favor of its= now widely popular VAX series. DARPA switched to Vax as the platform it wi= ll supply to its contractors (DOD and DOE, as well as other depts, offered = different systems).=C2=A0 However, with the vax as a common platform for th= e DARPA contractor, there was still a need for some system extensions like = ports/sockets for different research projects DARPA is funding.=C2=A0 =C2= =A0The research community has started to switch to UNIX. But DARPA is conce= rned about AT&T's "abandoning the OS on the doorstep" sch= eme.=C2=A0 So the question was, how to get UNIX supported on Vax,=C2=A0 Sin= ce the version of UNIX being used on the VAX by >>much<< but no= t all of the DOD and DOE community was BSD, DARPA's solution was let a = contract to create a support group - CSRG was born.

<= div>

This story implies DARPA helped arrange Unix licences with the many defence= contractors, albeit they only need binaries for BSD.
I did not imply that, nor do I think DARP= A did. I think other parts of US GOV did=C2=A0>>sometimes<<=C2=A0have access to the UNIX IP by means other th= an the traditional license scheme from AT&T/WE Patent and Licensing gro= up=C2=A0=C2=A0-- i.e. Otis Wilson=C2=A0et al=C2=A0= (we have evidence of the same).= =C2=A0 For instance,=C2=A0Ford Aero was doing a joint project with AT&T f= or NASA [NASA is now an independent agency, but I wonder if that was always= true]. Ford Aero is known to have had special access [and there seems to b= e evidence this was based on PWB 1.0 - which never was formally released ou= tside of the Bell System].=C2=A0 There have been other discussions that whe= n other parts of Ford Motor wanted to use UNIX, the Ford Aero folks were un= able to help them.

=
We also know that Rand was an original (1960s) D= ARPA contractor [back to its origin story as a research office inside the A= ir Force].=C2=A0 =C2=A0When the folks from Harvard went to Rand and wanted = to use UNIX, the first commercial license was created by AT&T.=C2=A0 An= d we know that story.=C2=A0=C2=A0
There is evidence that some US go= vernment contractors, such as BBN, were in a grey zone. I'll try to get= some enlightenment from some of the BBN UNIX folks I know. From discussion= s, it >>seems<< like the first version of UNIX made its way int= o BBN and was part of a US Gov contract, probably shared with ATT. But by t= he time of CSRG, BBN definitely had traditionally commercial source license= s.=C2=A0 =C2=A0We also know that Ford became a traditional licensee but sta= rted in a place different from others [particularly if the reports of using= PWB 1.0 were true -- that distribution was not available from the AT&T= /WE patent and license group].=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0

<= /div>

=C2=A0
If the Internet Society=E2=80=99s =E2=80=98brief history=E2=80=99 is to be = believed, Defence declared Unix a =E2=80=99standard=E2=80=99 (for which wor= k?) in 1980.
Please= be careful here.=C2=A0 The IP based on the UNIX ideas was not a USG standa= rd for any department until FIPS-151 was published post IEEE P1003.1 - whic= h was all in the 1980s. That said, there was often an=C2=A0operational standard=C2=A0in many= US government departments, including DOD, by the early 1980s; based on a p= reference for a flavor of UNIX by many users, particularly researchers.

Furthermore, IP/TCP was the DOD's operat= ional standard=C2=A0by the early 1980s, but by the mid-1980s, DOD's DDN= and DOC had picked ISO/OSI and GMAP specifications over the IP family [and= we all know how that played out in the end].=C2=A0=C2=A0A num= ber of us in the industry at the time we scrambling how to bring an ISO= /OSI stack out on our products for the USG and the Auto/Aerospace cu= stomers who were telling us they would not order equipment without [and, of= course, the folks in the EU were pushing X.25 and the rest of ISO to count= er IP's take off].=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Metcalf's law would cause IP= to win out (i.e., economic reasons), but understand there is a difference b= etween an official standard and what was actually occurring.

--0000000000007dcaa0061353dcba--