Computer Old Farts Forum
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
       [not found] ` <CAKH6PiVCjo3YnTZUVYOCDeffQ6POVwGAQA1QMR9UinkfGn+AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2021-07-15  6:33   ` Michael Kjörling
  2021-07-15 20:44     ` Derek Fawcus
  2021-07-15 15:07   ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Michael Kjörling @ 2021-07-15  6:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff

On 14 Jul 2021 22:21 -0400, from douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy):
> IBM provided source code for the Fortran II compiler.

More recently than that, for the original IBM PC anyone could get (I
believe) the complete schematics, detailed technical information, and
a commented ROM BIOS source code listing just by purchasing their
Technical Reference for, what, $50 or thereabouts?

It certainly wasn't open source according to the Open Source
Definition, but it certainly was _available_ to anyone who wanted a
copy.

What kind of company does that today, in a similar market segment?

-- 
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael@kjorling.se
 “Remember when, on the Internet, nobody cared that you were a dog?”

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
       [not found] ` <CAKH6PiVCjo3YnTZUVYOCDeffQ6POVwGAQA1QMR9UinkfGn+AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
  2021-07-15  6:33   ` [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released Michael Kjörling
@ 2021-07-15 15:07   ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-15 15:07 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Douglas McIlroy; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3413 bytes --]

Thank you, Doug.

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 10:22 PM Douglas McIlroy <
douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> The open source movement was a revival of the old days of SHARE and other
> user groups.
>
Amen, my basic point, although I was also trying to pointing at that these
user groups got started b*ecause the vendors gave the sources to their
products out.*  We SHARED patches and features. DECUS started out the same
way.   For instance, many/most PDP-10 OS's used the DEC compilers and often
even found a way to run TOPS-10 binaries by emulating the UUOs.  The
IBM/360 world worked pretty much the same way.  My own experience was that
the compilers (e.g WATFIV-FTNG-ALGOLW-PL/1) and language interpreters
(APL-Snolbol) for the TSS and MTS had been 'ported' from the IBM-supplied
OS [my own first job was doing just that].

The same story was true for the PDP-8 with DOS-8/TSS-8 and the like. By the
time of the PDP-11, while some of the DEC source code was available (such
as the Fortran-IV for RT-11/RSX), since it took at PDP-10/BLISS to support
it, DEC had it its protection - so moving it/stealing it - would have been
harder.  By the time of the VAX, DEC was charging a lot of money of SW and
it was actually a revenue stream, so they keep a lot more locked up and
had started to do the same with PDP-10 world.

So, the available/unavailable source issue came when things started to get
closed up, which really started with the rise of the SW industry and making
revenue with the use of your SW.   OEMs and IVSs started to be a lot less
willing to reveal what they thought was their 'special sauce.'    Some/many
end-users started to balk.   RMS just took it to a new level - just look at
how he reacted to Symbolics being closed source :-)

The question that used to come up (and still does not an extent) is how are
the engineers and teams of people that developed the SW going to be
paid/renumerated for their work?   The RMS/GNU answer had been service
revenue [and living like a student in a rent-controlled APT in
Central Sq].  What has happened for most of the biggest FOSS projects, the
salaries are paid for firms like my own that pay developers to work on the
SW and most FOSS projects die when the developer/maintainer is unable to
continue (if not just gets bored).

In fact, [I can not say I personally know this - but have read internal
memos that make the claim], Intel pays for more Linux developers and now
LLVM developers than any firm.  What's interesting is that Intel does not
really directly sell its HW product to end-users.  We sell to others than
use our chips to make their products.   We have finally moved to the
support model for the compilers (I've personally been fighting that battle
for 15 years).

So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the *idea
*of "Open Source" is really not anything new.  While it may be new in their
lifetime/experience, it is frankly at minimum a sad, if not outright
disingenuous, statement for the people to try to imply otherwise because
they are unwilling to look back into history and understand, much less
accept it as a fact.  Trying to rewrite history is just not pretty to
witness.  And I am pleased to see that a few folks (like Larry) that have
lived a little both times have tried to pass the torch with more complete
history.

Clem.


ᐧ

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 6380 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-15 15:07   ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-15 23:02       ` joe mcguckin
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-15 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> In fact, [I can not say I personally know this - but have read internal
> memos that make the claim], Intel pays for more Linux developers and now
> LLVM developers than any firm.  What's interesting is that Intel does not
> really directly sell its HW product to end-users.  We sell to others than
> use our chips to make their products.   We have finally moved to the
> support model for the compilers (I've personally been fighting that battle
> for 15 years).

That claim is probably from the data collected from the Linux
Foundation, which publishes these stats every year or two.  The most
recent one is here:

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_kernel_history_report_082720.pdf

The top ten organizations responsible for commits from 2007 -- 2019:

(None)		11.95%
Intel		10.01%
Red Hat		 8.90%
(Unknown)	 4.09%
IBM		 3.79%
SuSE		 3.49%
Linaro		 3.17%
(Consultant)	 2.96%
Google		 2.79%
Samsung		 2.58%

"None" means no organizational affiliation (e.g., hobbyists, students,
etc.)  "Unknown" means the organization affiliation couldn't be
determined.

For more recent data, if you look at the commits for the 5.10 release
(end of 2020), the top ten list by organizations looks like this:

Huawei	     8.9%
Intel	     8.0%
(Unknown)    6.6%
(None)	     4.9%
Red Hat	     5.7%
Google	     5.2%
AMD	     4.3%
Linaro	     4.1%
Samsung	     3.5%
IBM	     3.2%

For the full list and more stats, see: https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/

> So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the *idea
> *of "Open Source" is really not anything new.

I do think there is something which is radically new --- which is that
it's not a single company publishing all of the source code for a
particular OS, whether it's System/360 or the PDP-8 Disk Operating
System, or whatever.

In other words, it's the shared nature of the collaboration, which
partially solves the question of "who pays" --- the answer is, "lots
of companies, and they do so when it makes business sense for them to
do so".  Intel may have had the largest number of contributions to
Linux historically --- but that was still 10%, and it was eclipsed by
people with no organizational affliation, and in the 5.10 kernel
Huawei slightly edged out Intel with 8.9% vs 8.0% contributions.

I completely agree with you that one of the key questions is the
business case issue.  Not only who pays, but how do they justify the
software investment to the bean counters?  Of course, the "Stone Soup"
story predates computers, so this certainly isn't a new business
model.  And arguably the X Window Systems and the Open Software
Foundation also had a similar model where multiple companies
contributed to a common codebase, with perhaps mixed levels of
success.

The thing which Linux has managed to achieve, however, is the fact
that there is a large and diverse base of corporate contributions.
That to me is what makes the Linux model so interesting, and has been
a reason for its long-term sustainability.

Other companies may have been making their source code availble, but
the underlying business model behind their "source available" practices
was quite different.

Cheers,

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-16 16:11         ` Jonathan Corbet
  2021-07-15 23:02       ` joe mcguckin
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-15 20:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2617 bytes --]

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 3:33 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> > So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the
> *idea
> > *of "Open Source" is really not anything new.
>
> I do think there is something which is radically new --- which is that
> it's not a single company publishing all of the source code for a
> particular OS, whether it's System/360 or the PDP-8 Disk Operating
> System, or whatever.


Ted - that *is what* Doug pointed out!!!  They did not create anything that
was new.  SHARED / DECUS / USENIX and the like were providing that exact
same function starting in the late 1950s!!!  Companies and Universities all
pooled their resources to make things better and to get new and improved
solutions.    Sometimes they started with things that come from the
original OEM.  Also often they created their own technology and made it
available to everyone.  Sometime they combine both.  And it was a
'bazaar where everyone had access and you chose to use it to not.  Sounds
pretty familiar, BTW.

What >>has<< changed (dramatically) was the *method* and *ability* to
*distribute* your work and/or the manner you *obtained* someone else's
efforts.  Today we download via the Web (much less ftp from a public area),
which is much more convenient than becoming a member of an organization and
having to obtain (typically for a small $50-$100 trape copying fee) a
9-track distribution tape.  But even the concept of 'free' is really not
new as I said.   Things like UCB's ILO used that model for a long time.
 MIT, CMU, Stanford, Univerity of Waterloo, Cambridge, et al, just made
their work to any interested parties.

But due to the new way of being *interconnected *and a *much better
distribution scheme* that indeed is a huge feature.  But please understand
'open source and collective sharing/working together is not a new thing
that just appeared with the Gnu project and was accelerated and taken to a
new level with the Linux work.

I personally blame esr's book for that beginning of the rewriting of
history/kicking the previous generations in the shins, as readers of it, or
worse readers of summations of it, miss the big picture instead of the
reality of standing on other shoulders.

I do want to give create for the cool and important things that have come.
I just want to make sure we don't forget the success of the modern world is
100% dependent on two important things: moore's law to make things more
economic and the hard work of a lot of people that came before (now and
before me for that matter).
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4662 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-15  6:33   ` [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released Michael Kjörling
@ 2021-07-15 20:44     ` Derek Fawcus
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Derek Fawcus @ 2021-07-15 20:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 06:33:14AM +0000, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 14 Jul 2021 22:21 -0400, from douglas.mcilroy@dartmouth.edu (Douglas McIlroy):
> > IBM provided source code for the Fortran II compiler.
> 
> More recently than that, for the original IBM PC anyone could get (I
> believe) the complete schematics, detailed technical information, and
> a commented ROM BIOS source code listing just by purchasing their
> Technical Reference for, what, $50 or thereabouts?

Not just the original PC, I recall having access to the PC-AT version
at work a number of years ago. I've no idea what it cost.

DF
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS]   386BSD released
  2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-15 23:02       ` joe mcguckin
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: joe mcguckin @ 2021-07-15 23:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3956 bytes --]

I remember going to one of those cattle-call hiring events. I wanted to speak with the Intel compiler guy and when I got up to him, all he said 
was “Ganapathi”.

I actually knew who/what hw was talking about.

So, has Intel killed their own compiler toolset?

Joe McGuckin
ViaNet Communications

joe@via.net
650-207-0372 cell
650-213-1302 office
650-969-2124 fax



> On Jul 15, 2021, at 12:33 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 11:07:10AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
>> In fact, [I can not say I personally know this - but have read internal
>> memos that make the claim], Intel pays for more Linux developers and now
>> LLVM developers than any firm.  What's interesting is that Intel does not
>> really directly sell its HW product to end-users.  We sell to others than
>> use our chips to make their products.   We have finally moved to the
>> support model for the compilers (I've personally been fighting that battle
>> for 15 years).
> 
> That claim is probably from the data collected from the Linux
> Foundation, which publishes these stats every year or two.  The most
> recent one is here:
> 
> https://www.linuxfoundation.org/wp-content/uploads/2020_kernel_history_report_082720.pdf
> 
> The top ten organizations responsible for commits from 2007 -- 2019:
> 
> (None)		11.95%
> Intel		10.01%
> Red Hat		 8.90%
> (Unknown)	 4.09%
> IBM		 3.79%
> SuSE		 3.49%
> Linaro		 3.17%
> (Consultant)	 2.96%
> Google		 2.79%
> Samsung		 2.58%
> 
> "None" means no organizational affiliation (e.g., hobbyists, students,
> etc.)  "Unknown" means the organization affiliation couldn't be
> determined.
> 
> For more recent data, if you look at the commits for the 5.10 release
> (end of 2020), the top ten list by organizations looks like this:
> 
> Huawei	     8.9%
> Intel	     8.0%
> (Unknown)    6.6%
> (None)	     4.9%
> Red Hat	     5.7%
> Google	     5.2%
> AMD	     4.3%
> Linaro	     4.1%
> Samsung	     3.5%
> IBM	     3.2%
> 
> For the full list and more stats, see: https://lwn.net/Articles/839772/
> 
>> So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the *idea
>> *of "Open Source" is really not anything new.
> 
> I do think there is something which is radically new --- which is that
> it's not a single company publishing all of the source code for a
> particular OS, whether it's System/360 or the PDP-8 Disk Operating
> System, or whatever.
> 
> In other words, it's the shared nature of the collaboration, which
> partially solves the question of "who pays" --- the answer is, "lots
> of companies, and they do so when it makes business sense for them to
> do so".  Intel may have had the largest number of contributions to
> Linux historically --- but that was still 10%, and it was eclipsed by
> people with no organizational affliation, and in the 5.10 kernel
> Huawei slightly edged out Intel with 8.9% vs 8.0% contributions.
> 
> I completely agree with you that one of the key questions is the
> business case issue.  Not only who pays, but how do they justify the
> software investment to the bean counters?  Of course, the "Stone Soup"
> story predates computers, so this certainly isn't a new business
> model.  And arguably the X Window Systems and the Open Software
> Foundation also had a similar model where multiple companies
> contributed to a common codebase, with perhaps mixed levels of
> success.
> 
> The thing which Linux has managed to achieve, however, is the fact
> that there is a large and diverse base of corporate contributions.
> That to me is what makes the Linux model so interesting, and has been
> a reason for its long-term sustainability.
> 
> Other companies may have been making their source code availble, but
> the underlying business model behind their "source available" practices
> was quite different.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> 					- Ted


[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8933 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-16  2:14           ` George Michaelson
  2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-16 16:11         ` Jonathan Corbet
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-16  1:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy

On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:30:15PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> Ted - that *is what* Doug pointed out!!!  They did not create anything that
> was new.  SHARED / DECUS / USENIX and the like were providing that exact
> same function starting in the late 1950s!!!  Companies and Universities all
> pooled their resources to make things better and to get new and improved
> solutions.    Sometimes they started with things that come from the
> original OEM.  Also often they created their own technology and made it
> available to everyone.  Sometime they combine both.  And it was a
> 'bazaar where everyone had access and you chose to use it to not.  Sounds
> pretty familiar, BTW.

I remember looking at the DECUS program catalog for the PDP-8, and I
seem to recall that for the most part, individuals were sharing their
programs with others.  In that way, it wasn't all that different from
say, CPM/UG, and HUG (Heathkit Users Group).  But the thing is, for
the most part, it was a single author sharing individual programs, and
often changes were not accepted back.  

Consider the history of Bill Jolitz and 386BSD, and the collection of
patches that eventuallya became NetBSD and FreeBSD, which was formed
because they were frustrated that they couldn't get their patch sets
back into Jolitz's code base.  Technology plays a part, in that it
enables the change.  But it's not just about technology.  There is
also a very strong social component.  Even when you were richly
interconnected at the network level, this does not guarantee that will
be willing to be richly interconnected in terms of accepting patch
sets from people who you may not know across the Internet, into *your*
program, for which you are the author and high priest.

I don't remember the exact date, but it would have been in the early
90's, when at the time I was already contributing patches to Linux,
and where ftp and e-mail and applying patches via context diffs was
very much available.  At that time, we were interested in getting
support for MIT Project Athena's Hesiod extenstions into the BIND
distributions (we had just been carrying patches against BIND for many
years).

In order to get those patches integrated, Paul Vixie invited me to his
house in Redwood City, and so I flew from Boston to San Francisco,
carrying my Linux laptop with the BIND patches, and we got the patches
integrated into master BIND sources.  Paul was a gracious host, and it
was lovely that I got to spend some time with him.  But it was
interesting that my physical presence was needed, or at least highly
useful, in terms of getting those patches into BIND.  Requiring
physical presence to get patches integrated.... doesn't scale.

And so it wasn't a matter of technology, since the technology for
Linus, who didn't know me from Adam in 1991, to accept patches from me
implementing BSD Job Control, was certainly available when I was
working with Paul to get the Hesiod changes integrated into BIND.  But
like with Jolitz and 386BSD, it's a mindset thing, not just technology.

I also want to emphasize again, the question of business model is also
something which I think is different, and *important*.  It's one thing
for Academics and Researchers to be willing to give changes away to
anyone who wants.  It's quite another for a company to give away their
intellectual property in such a way that it can actually be used by
their competitors, either because that's the social convention, or
because it's enforced by the license.  Was the practices we use today
for Linux built on the traditions of comp.sources.unix, and BSD, and
AT&T Research, and IBM making sources available for System/360, yadda,
yadda, yadda?  Of course!  I'm not denying that.

But at the same time, to claim that nothing is new under the Sun, and
*all* of this had been done decades earlier, is also not the whole
story.  And to call IBM releasing System/360, when they retained
control of the license, and wasn't accepting any changes back, and
*darned* well would have sued anyone trying to use that code on
non-IBM computers into a smoking crater, as "Open Source" can be
highly misleading, because that is not what most people associate with
the term "Open Source" today.

And if we take a look at what AT&T Lawyers did with the Unix source
code, at some point, it most *defintely* was the antithesis of "Open
Source".  Which would lead me to assert that Unix was never really
released under what today we would call, "Open Source".

Cheers,

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS]  386BSD released
  2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-16  2:14           ` George Michaelson
  2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: George Michaelson @ 2021-07-16  2:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy

I was part of a discussion about a bug in the DECUS tape in Leeds uni,
in '82-84 window. I was a very small part I might add, not the
principal. I can't remember the package. It was probably trivia, like
walking a specific SYS$SYSTEM value in a way which was dangerous or
encoded assumptions about device:directory:user models in VMS.

The feedback I got from this process was "thanks, we'll think about
it" was closure, for those days.  We'd been pretty specific about a
fix. I got the sense the tape was an annual affair. And the likelihood
of our "patch" being both accepted, and added to the next round of the
tape was low-to-zero because everyone wanted "moar" and so people
focussed on adding things, not fixing things.

The exception here was compilers: people always want bugs fixed in a
compiler. Or the NAG library, but both compilers (language spec) and
NAG (strict maths formalisms about correctness) had policed mechanisms
to accept user input, validate, run through a remorselessly tight
compliance check, and emit, if it survived.

A bug in the implementation of MUD for dec-10? ok, so the word
"potato" is misspelled on one screen. Move on.

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 11:59 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 04:30:15PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> >
> > Ted - that *is what* Doug pointed out!!!  They did not create anything that
> > was new.  SHARED / DECUS / USENIX and the like were providing that exact
> > same function starting in the late 1950s!!!  Companies and Universities all
> > pooled their resources to make things better and to get new and improved
> > solutions.    Sometimes they started with things that come from the
> > original OEM.  Also often they created their own technology and made it
> > available to everyone.  Sometime they combine both.  And it was a
> > 'bazaar where everyone had access and you chose to use it to not.  Sounds
> > pretty familiar, BTW.
>
> I remember looking at the DECUS program catalog for the PDP-8, and I
> seem to recall that for the most part, individuals were sharing their
> programs with others.  In that way, it wasn't all that different from
> say, CPM/UG, and HUG (Heathkit Users Group).  But the thing is, for
> the most part, it was a single author sharing individual programs, and
> often changes were not accepted back.
>
> Consider the history of Bill Jolitz and 386BSD, and the collection of
> patches that eventuallya became NetBSD and FreeBSD, which was formed
> because they were frustrated that they couldn't get their patch sets
> back into Jolitz's code base.  Technology plays a part, in that it
> enables the change.  But it's not just about technology.  There is
> also a very strong social component.  Even when you were richly
> interconnected at the network level, this does not guarantee that will
> be willing to be richly interconnected in terms of accepting patch
> sets from people who you may not know across the Internet, into *your*
> program, for which you are the author and high priest.
>
> I don't remember the exact date, but it would have been in the early
> 90's, when at the time I was already contributing patches to Linux,
> and where ftp and e-mail and applying patches via context diffs was
> very much available.  At that time, we were interested in getting
> support for MIT Project Athena's Hesiod extenstions into the BIND
> distributions (we had just been carrying patches against BIND for many
> years).
>
> In order to get those patches integrated, Paul Vixie invited me to his
> house in Redwood City, and so I flew from Boston to San Francisco,
> carrying my Linux laptop with the BIND patches, and we got the patches
> integrated into master BIND sources.  Paul was a gracious host, and it
> was lovely that I got to spend some time with him.  But it was
> interesting that my physical presence was needed, or at least highly
> useful, in terms of getting those patches into BIND.  Requiring
> physical presence to get patches integrated.... doesn't scale.
>
> And so it wasn't a matter of technology, since the technology for
> Linus, who didn't know me from Adam in 1991, to accept patches from me
> implementing BSD Job Control, was certainly available when I was
> working with Paul to get the Hesiod changes integrated into BIND.  But
> like with Jolitz and 386BSD, it's a mindset thing, not just technology.
>
> I also want to emphasize again, the question of business model is also
> something which I think is different, and *important*.  It's one thing
> for Academics and Researchers to be willing to give changes away to
> anyone who wants.  It's quite another for a company to give away their
> intellectual property in such a way that it can actually be used by
> their competitors, either because that's the social convention, or
> because it's enforced by the license.  Was the practices we use today
> for Linux built on the traditions of comp.sources.unix, and BSD, and
> AT&T Research, and IBM making sources available for System/360, yadda,
> yadda, yadda?  Of course!  I'm not denying that.
>
> But at the same time, to claim that nothing is new under the Sun, and
> *all* of this had been done decades earlier, is also not the whole
> story.  And to call IBM releasing System/360, when they retained
> control of the license, and wasn't accepting any changes back, and
> *darned* well would have sued anyone trying to use that code on
> non-IBM computers into a smoking crater, as "Open Source" can be
> highly misleading, because that is not what most people associate with
> the term "Open Source" today.
>
> And if we take a look at what AT&T Lawyers did with the Unix source
> code, at some point, it most *defintely* was the antithesis of "Open
> Source".  Which would lead me to assert that Unix was never really
> released under what today we would call, "Open Source".
>
> Cheers,
>
>                                         - Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS]   386BSD released
  2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-16 16:11         ` Jonathan Corbet
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Jonathan Corbet @ 2021-07-16 16:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole, Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, TUHS main list, Douglas McIlroy

Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> writes:

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2021 at 3:33 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> > So back to my basic point ... while giving the *behavior* a name, the
>> *idea
>> > *of "Open Source" is really not anything new.
>>
>> I do think there is something which is radically new --- which is that
>> it's not a single company publishing all of the source code for a
>> particular OS, whether it's System/360 or the PDP-8 Disk Operating
>> System, or whatever.
>
>
> Ted - that *is what* Doug pointed out!!!  They did not create anything that
> was new.  SHARED / DECUS / USENIX and the like were providing that exact
> same function starting in the late 1950s!!!  Companies and Universities all
> pooled their resources to make things better and to get new and improved
> solutions.

I hate to admit it, but I contributed to the vax86a DECUS tape:

  http://mail.digiater.nl/openvms/decus/vax86a/ncar/aaareadme.txt

It was a fundamentally different experience.  It showed that the desire
to share software was alive and well, but DECUS tapes were full of dead
offerings.  You could take them or leave them, but there was no overall
effort to integrate or improve that code or to make a coherent offering
out of it.  I know people used that code but nobody ever sent me an
improvement to it.  It was an ornament I could hang on DEC's tree.

DECUS, X Consortium, USENET, etc. all laid a lot of the groundwork for
what came after, but Linux was, for me at least, the first opportunity
to get my hands on the whole system in a setting where nobody had
privileged access.  That, I think, was fundamentally different.

jon
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-16  2:14           ` George Michaelson
@ 2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via COFF @ 2021-07-16 18:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2858 bytes --]

On 7/15/21 7:58 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> Requiring physical presence to get patches integrated.... doesn't 
> scale.

I believe I understand the spirit of what you are saying.  However I 
have a question:

Was the need / requirement for your physical presence motivated by (a 
lack of) technology?  Or was it more an interview of you / your team to 
determine if your contributions were desired or not?  I see a huge 
difference behind raw code and the team (trust ability / intentions) 
behind the code.  May people can do work required for a job remotely, 
yet must apply and interview for said job in person.

So, what was the real gate / blocker?  Technology to accept the code? 
Or meeting / getting to know the person / representative of the people 
behind the code?

> ... that is not what most people associate with the term "Open Source" 
> today.

I think this touches on the crux of the issue for me.

Does the ability to see the source code (in and of itself) constitute a 
license to use said source code (or compilations there of)?

My opinion is that no, the ability to see the source code is not the 
same thing as a license to use said source code.  There are many 
examples where visibility of source code and licensing to use it are two 
completely independent things.

There are many freely available programs with licenses to run them which 
do not provide any access to source code.  You probably only need to 
look as far as your Downloads folder for an example of such software / 
licenses.

There are many freely available programs with licenses and source code. 
The Linux kernel is a quintessential example.

There are fewer examples of programs where you can see the source code 
but do not have a license to run said program.  I know that Microsoft 
has made (parts of) Windows source code available to various 
institutions.  I'm confident that there are other examples.

So to me, there are two circles with some overlap between them, forming 
three broad categories that software can fall into.

Closed Source / Open License
Open License / Open Source
Open Source / Closed License

I believe that many people think of "Open Source" as being the middle 
overlap where both the License and the Source are open.  This may be 
accurate more of the time than it is not.  However I think that assuming 
it to /always/ be the case is ... unsafe.

After all, look at the terminology:  Open /Source/.  Emphasis on the 
word "Source" as short for source code.  Nothing about source code in 
and of itself implies a /license/ to use it.  Sure, there is quite 
likely an ability to use the source code (if you have all of it).  But 
the ability to do something does not mean that it's proper or legal, 
much less proper, to do so.



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4013 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
@ 2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-17  6:30               ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
  2021-07-18  3:29               ` [COFF] [TUHS] " Grant Taylor via COFF
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-17  4:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor; +Cc: coff

On Fri, Jul 16, 2021 at 12:02:39PM -0600, Grant Taylor via COFF wrote:
> On 7/15/21 7:58 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> > Requiring physical presence to get patches integrated.... doesn't scale.
> 
> I believe I understand the spirit of what you are saying.  However I have a
> question:
> 
> Was the need / requirement for your physical presence motivated by (a lack
> of) technology?  Or was it more an interview of you / your team to determine
> if your contributions were desired or not?  I see a huge difference behind
> raw code and the team (trust ability / intentions) behind the code.  May
> people can do work required for a job remotely, yet must apply and interview
> for said job in person.
> 
> So, what was the real gate / blocker?  Technology to accept the code? Or
> meeting / getting to know the person / representative of the people behind
> the code?

I'm really not sure what was the blocker.  Hesiod had been used in
production at MIT Project Athena for a number of years, and had been
written up as papers at Usenix and LISA, and had been vetted by the
IETF and the specification was in RFC 1035.  The patches were
available on MIT ftp servers, and there were one or two other sites
who were using it.

I didn't actually write the Hesiod patches; it was originally written
by Steve Dyer, who was a full-time engineer on loan from IBM to
Project Athena.  But this was after Steve had returned to IBM, and I
was maintaining the name servers running at MIT.  I had tried
communicating via email, and to be honest the patches weren't all that
complicated.  But I didn't have any luck, and finally Paul invited me
to his house.

Whatever the reason, if people require physical presence to develop
trust, or something else --- it just doesn't scale.  You can have the
technology, but if people insist on wanting do the whole "dog sniffing
another dog's butt" before trusting a code contribution, that's not a
particularly healthy pattern for an active, vibrant open source project.

> My opinion is that no, the ability to see the source code is not the same
> thing as a license to use said source code.  There are many examples where
> visibility of source code and licensing to use it are two completely
> independent things.

I actually think there are three different dimensions.

* Source Availability
* Licensing which conforms to the Open Source Definition
* Contributions Accepted (in practice)

These are not binary, of course; Microsoft might make only part of its
sources available to various companys or countries.  But trying to
claim that this is "Open Source" is just going to confuse people,
because that is *not* how most people in the industry use that term
today.  So that's why I would suggest the terminology "Source
Available".

The third dimension, whether or not Contributions are accepted, is
also an important distinction.  And again, it's not a binary.  It's
not that it was *impossible* for me to get a new feature into BIND.
It just required a physical visit in order to make it happen.

> Closed Source / Open License
> Open License / Open Source
> Open Source / Closed License
> 
> I believe that many people think of "Open Source" as being the middle
> overlap where both the License and the Source are open.  This may be
> accurate more of the time than it is not.  However I think that assuming it
> to /always/ be the case is ... unsafe.

You may want "Open Source" to mean something else, but the common
language in the industry is that it means "License which conforms to
the Open Source Definition".  That's how it's been used since 1998[1].
Companies have Open Source Compliance Offices/Officers.

The name was chosen specifically because "Free Software" was
considered too scary, and radicalized.  For too many people, brought
to mind a creepy man who would talk about making all programming be
funded by the government (Socialism!), and wearing a disk platter as
"Saint IGNUcius".

So it was very much a rebranding effort, taking the Debian Free
Software Guidelines, changing it slightly, calling it the Open Source
Definition, and then using the term Open Source.  For all intents and
purposes, the set of software which was "Free Software" and the set of
software which was "Open Source" are identical.  "Open Source" was a
name that was picked so as not to scare the suits[1].

[1] https://opensource.org/history

You can try to argue that it should have a different etymology, but
that's not how the name was chosen, from a historical standpoint.  And
trying to change the definition after the fact is likely going to be
as successful as Stallman's attempt to rename Linux to be GNU/Linux.
Trying to dictate to the people who came up with and use a name that
they should change the name, or change the definition, without their
consent, will likely lead to your being ignored in the best case, or
mocked in the worst.

Cheers,

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] 386BSD released
  2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-17  6:30               ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
  2021-07-17 12:37                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-18  3:29               ` [COFF] [TUHS] " Grant Taylor via COFF
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF @ 2021-07-17  6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: coff, Grant Taylor

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

> [The] common language in the industry is [Open Source] it means
> "License which conforms to the Open Source Definition".  That's how
> it's been used since 1998[1].

I seem to remember, relatively shortly after that, a tendency on the net
to differentiate between "open source" and "Open Source".  Earlier in
this thread, I mentioned MINIX 1, from 1987.  That version of the OS was
open source, but not, by the later definition, Open Source.
(Prentice-Hall, being a publishing company, insisted on having the
copyright, but the source code was printed in the book, and you could
order it on floppies or tape for $80.)

-tih
-- 
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance
of Lisp.  Lisp is the most important idea in computer science.  --Alan Kay
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] 386BSD released
  2021-07-17  6:30               ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
@ 2021-07-17 12:37                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-17 13:30                   ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-17 12:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo; +Cc: coff, Grant Taylor

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 08:30:56AM +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> 
> I seem to remember, relatively shortly after that, a tendency on the net
> to differentiate between "open source" and "Open Source".  Earlier in
> this thread, I mentioned MINIX 1, from 1987.  That version of the OS was
> open source, but not, by the later definition, Open Source.
> (Prentice-Hall, being a publishing company, insisted on having the
> copyright, but the source code was printed in the book, and you could
> order it on floppies or tape for $80.)

Can you provide any references?  A quick Google Search doesn't turn up
what you've described.  Instead there are references such as this:

   "What you will find here is the contents of the last Minix 1 and 2
   releases, 1.7.5 and 2.0.4...

   You won't find all the source here, because Minix came with most
   source, but not all; the C compiler is ACKPACK, a special version
   of the Amsterdam Compiler Kit, carefully cut down and modified to
   run on Minix. Back when this was released, this wasn't open source."

   - https://github.com/davidgiven/minix2

I can imagine marketing folks trying to confuse people by trying to
claim that their product was something it was not --- such as from
Prentice Hall, the publisher of the Minix book. 

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] 386BSD released
  2021-07-17 12:37                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-17 13:30                   ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF @ 2021-07-17 13:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: coff, Grant Taylor

"Theodore Y. Ts'o" <tytso@mit.edu> writes:

> Can you provide any references?  A quick Google Search doesn't turn up
> what you've described.

I was paraphrasing what Andy Tanenbaum says near the beginning of every
talk of his on MINIX 3 I've seen on Youtube.  But yeah, you're right:
while MINIX was open source, the C compiler was not, and was supplied in
binary form only.

> I can imagine marketing folks trying to confuse people by trying to
> claim that their product was something it was not --- such as from
> Prentice Hall, the publisher of the Minix book. 

I can't imagine them using the term "open source", either.  :)

-tih
-- 
Most people who graduate with CS degrees don't understand the significance
of Lisp.  Lisp is the most important idea in computer science.  --Alan Kay
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-17  6:30               ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
@ 2021-07-18  3:29               ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via COFF @ 2021-07-18  3:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 569 bytes --]

On 7/16/21 10:09 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> You can try to argue that it should have a different etymology

I'm not trying to argue anything.

If anything, I'm sharing what I think is a different / an alternate 
understanding.

I view "open source" (case insensitive) as having two different 
definitions, much like "hacker" has two almost diametrically opposed 
definitions depending which community you're in.

The dualism exists, and I believe that there's nothing that I can do to 
change that.  So why try?



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4013 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-18  3:29               ` [COFF] [TUHS] " Grant Taylor via COFF
@ 2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
  2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-18  6:44                   ` Andy Kosela
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: David Arnold @ 2021-07-18  3:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor; +Cc: coff




David Arnold
0487 183 494
> On 18 Jul 2021, at 13:30, Grant Taylor via COFF <coff@minnie.tuhs.org> wrote:
> 
> On 7/16/21 10:09 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>> You can try to argue that it should have a different etymology
> 
> I'm not trying to argue anything.
> 
> If anything, I'm sharing what I think is a different / an alternate understanding.
> 
> I view "open source" (case insensitive) as having two different definitions, much like "hacker" has two almost diametrically opposed definitions depending which community you're in.
> 
> The dualism exists, and I believe that there's nothing that I can do to change that.  So why try?

That horse bolted when the Open Source folks claimed their definition..

“Open” was a widely used term at the time, with Open Systems in particular being a thing complete with history, corporate good will, conferences and magazines and so on.  It was particularly valuable as the respectable corporate face of Unix (vs the feared hairy hacker). 

The attempt to leverage/hijack that to make the hairy hackers’ Free Software corporately palatable has eclipsed the uncapitalized sense of the term.  Very few people distinguish the two, and so your meaning will often be lost. 




d


_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
@ 2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-19 13:41                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-18  6:44                   ` Andy Kosela
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via COFF @ 2021-07-18  4:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 226 bytes --]

On 7/17/21 9:42 PM, David Arnold wrote:
> Very few people distinguish the two, and so your meaning will often be lost.

Lost and forgotten is quite different than non-existent.  ;-)



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4013 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
  2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
@ 2021-07-18  6:44                   ` Andy Kosela
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Andy Kosela @ 2021-07-18  6:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: David Arnold; +Cc: coff, Grant Taylor

On 7/18/21, David Arnold <davida@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> David Arnold
> 0487 183 494
>> On 18 Jul 2021, at 13:30, Grant Taylor via COFF <coff@minnie.tuhs.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>> On 7/16/21 10:09 PM, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
>>> You can try to argue that it should have a different etymology
>>
>> I'm not trying to argue anything.
>>
>> If anything, I'm sharing what I think is a different / an alternate
>> understanding.
>>
>> I view "open source" (case insensitive) as having two different
>> definitions, much like "hacker" has two almost diametrically opposed
>> definitions depending which community you're in.
>>
>> The dualism exists, and I believe that there's nothing that I can do to
>> change that.  So why try?
>
> That horse bolted when the Open Source folks claimed their definition..
>
> “Open” was a widely used term at the time, with Open Systems in particular
> being a thing complete with history, corporate good will, conferences and
> magazines and so on.  It was particularly valuable as the respectable
> corporate face of Unix (vs the feared hairy hacker).
>
> The attempt to leverage/hijack that to make the hairy hackers’ Free Software
> corporately palatable has eclipsed the uncapitalized sense of the term.
> Very few people distinguish the two, and so your meaning will often be lost.

But it is always the winners who write the history books, so it is
going to be exactly the opposite -- the open source (uncapitalized)
meaning will be lost.  We are probably one of the last communities on
the Net that still distinguish the two and know our history.

The average modern young citizen of the Net even if he is computer
savvy will know nothing about it.  He might know how to program in
Rust or run Kubernetes, but will know nothing about the "open source"
practices of the ancients.  But he is definitely familiar with GPL and
Open Source movement.

A lot of it has to do with the global spread of Internet when
dispersed communities were joined together.  The popularity of Linux
and in consequence Open Source is directly connected with this
Internet revolution that took place in the 90s.  It was also the
international revolution.  Before 1989 it would be hard to imagine
that a young student from Finland could jumpstart such a global
movement.

--Andy
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
@ 2021-07-19 13:41                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-19 14:50                       ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-19 13:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Grant Taylor; +Cc: coff

On Sat, Jul 17, 2021 at 10:01:16PM -0600, Grant Taylor via COFF wrote:
> On 7/17/21 9:42 PM, David Arnold wrote:
> > Very few people distinguish the two, and so your meaning will often be lost.
> 
> Lost and forgotten is quite different than non-existent.  ;-)

If anyone can show any examples of people actually *using* the term
"open source" in the sense of "sources are available" before the Open
Source Definition was promulgated, that would be great.  But
otherwise, I think you're trying to retrofit a definition that was
never historically used.

						- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 13:41                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-19 14:50                       ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-19 14:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: COFF, Grant Taylor


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3515 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 9:41 AM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

>
> If anyone can show any examples of people actually *using* the term
> "open source" in the sense of "sources are available" before the Open
> Source Definition was promulgated, that would be great.  But
> otherwise, I think you're trying to retrofit a definition that was
> never historically used.
>

Which is my point -- we never had a name for the behavior, but the
behavior certainly existed for years before.  Funny, I just got an email
last night from Cerf, Sax and Haverty.

Here it is cut and pasted:

*"**Good paper!   As I was reading it, I kept thinking that the same story
could be told about TCP, which IMHO  has succeeded for many of the same
reasons.*

*Another possible cause of multiple mechanisms -- the fact that an
incompetent novice can make changes to open source.   When I took on the
task of writing TCP for 11/40 Unix, I had 1) seen Unix used once and
thought the console interactions were pure gibberish; 2) had programmed in
assembler on an 11/05 but never did anything in C; 3) had written
applications (e.g., email) that used the ARPANET, but had never written any
network system code; 4) had never heard of TCP; 5) had done some minor OS
work in Multics, CTSS, and ITS, but knew nothing about Unix.   Apparently,
those qualifications made me perfect for the assignment.*



*I suspect there's many similar situations where such people create code
and it works its way into the system.*
*BTW, the multiplicity characteristic is widespread.   I have a handful of
machines running Ubuntu, and I'm always amazed at how many different but
apparently similar mechanisms exist to do the same thing.   Struggling now
with USB, trying to get a new mouse to work the way I want.   Libinput,
Evdev, xinput, .... where is Lions' current edition for Ubuntu.......**"*


Which was (in context), a reaction to my observation about UNIX being
successful because it was open source and people could use the idea, the
code was published, al biet the license to use was not with
our remuneration.

This is coming from the networking and Tenex world.   We had the same
observation about the PDP-10 and ArpaNET community.  Doug points out SHARE
and DECUS.

The fact is anyone that lived in that world will tell you that it really is
not that different in behavior or intent.   Yes, DECUS and SHARE had/have a
lot of trash -- but you did not have to take it all -- just like today.
Does anyone everything just from the Gnu project much less all the possible
apt-get install for Linux?

Ted -- yes, your generation put a >>name<< to the behavior, which is a
wonderful thing and something you can be proud.  But the behavior of openly
sharing your work product with the community long predates, Linux, the
wider Internet, *et al. * It is sad a minimum, if not downright
disingenuous to say "open source" was created at that point.

What changed was Moore's law allowed more people to participate because the
cost of entry was dramatically lowered.  Remember the cost of deploying
UNIX (or Tenex or OS/360 etc..) was completely dominated by the HW cost.
 A few $K for an SW license was noise, in large sites a rounding error.

The Internet changed how distribution took place.   Netnews and the like
changed how people learn about new things (you did not have to be part of
the club).

But in all cases, the same behavior was there and it was just a smaller
group of people because the cost of the HW was the barrier to entry.

Clem

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 9277 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 14:50                       ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
  2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-19 17:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: COFF, Grant Taylor

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:50:07AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> Ted -- yes, your generation put a >>name<< to the behavior, which is a
> wonderful thing and something you can be proud.  But the behavior of openly
> sharing your work product with the community long predates, Linux, the
> wider Internet, *et al. * It is sad a minimum, if not downright
> disingenuous to say "open source" was created at that point.

No one said that "open source" was created at that point.  The perl,
BSD, FSF's emacs, gcc, and other software published under the GPL all
predated the definition of the **term** "Open Source".

However, I strongly contest the claim that Unix was "Open Source".
Unix was the UNPUBLISHED TRADE SECRET of AT&T, and students exposed to
Unix source code became contaminated with AT&T's "methods and
concepts" clause.  So they couldn't even *reimplement* Unix without
potentially getting sued by AT&T.

I always thought the implementation of /bin/true, which was a shell
script where the license statement proclaiming AT&T's copyright was
longer than the "exit 0" line, was both incredibly funny, and
incredibly sad.

Cheers,

						- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
  2021-07-19 20:21                             ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-20  1:05                             ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: John P. Linderman @ 2021-07-19 19:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: COFF, Grant Taylor


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1977 bytes --]

Ted observed:

I always thought the implementation of /bin/true, which was a shell
script where the license statement proclaiming AT&T's copyright was
longer than the "exit 0" line, was both incredibly funny, and
incredibly sad.


It's been a long time since I looked at the AT&T source, but I recall that
the version number was pushing 2 digits. It's hard to get it "wrong" on the
first try
(although I could possibly do it). More likely, the version numbers
reflected
changes to the licensing wording. -- jpl


On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:38 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:50:07AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> >
> > Ted -- yes, your generation put a >>name<< to the behavior, which is a
> > wonderful thing and something you can be proud.  But the behavior of
> openly
> > sharing your work product with the community long predates, Linux, the
> > wider Internet, *et al. * It is sad a minimum, if not downright
> > disingenuous to say "open source" was created at that point.
>
> No one said that "open source" was created at that point.  The perl,
> BSD, FSF's emacs, gcc, and other software published under the GPL all
> predated the definition of the **term** "Open Source".
>
> However, I strongly contest the claim that Unix was "Open Source".
> Unix was the UNPUBLISHED TRADE SECRET of AT&T, and students exposed to
> Unix source code became contaminated with AT&T's "methods and
> concepts" clause.  So they couldn't even *reimplement* Unix without
> potentially getting sued by AT&T.
>
> I always thought the implementation of /bin/true, which was a shell
> script where the license statement proclaiming AT&T's copyright was
> longer than the "exit 0" line, was both incredibly funny, and
> incredibly sad.
>
> Cheers,
>
>                                                 - Ted
> _______________________________________________
> COFF mailing list
> COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 3293 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
@ 2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-20  0:55                             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-19 20:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o, COFF


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6730 bytes --]

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:38 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> However, I strongly contest the claim that Unix was "Open Source".
> Unix was the UNPUBLISHED TRADE SECRET of AT&T, and students exposed to
> Unix source code became contaminated with AT&T's "methods and
> concepts" clause.

But it was not.   And in fact, the whole thing about the AT&T court case
was that most of thought it was about *copyright, *not if it was a *trade
secret* (Which is why they lost) in the end.
Note Jack Haverty's words to me last night about UNIX in the mid-1970s when
he was working the first PDP-11/40 TCP implementation show he was is
thinking the same way as I am: * the fact that an incompetent novice can
make changes to **open source.*

BTW: I asked Jack last night what type of license BBN had.  He responded
that he did not think they really had one originally.   They were an ARPA
contractor.  He (i.e. BBN) did not have to go into legal hoops until he
wanted more documentation (*a.k.a.* the Lions text).

The concern was not that we were going to be sue for being mentally
contaminated,  that whole idea did not come about until after the law suite.

> So they couldn't even *reimplement* Unix without potentially getting sued
> by AT&T.
>
Which of course is what made the whole thing silly.   The first 'UNIX
clone' was by an ex-BTL, Dave Plauger's Idris, an implementation of v6.
Many others would follow, from Coherent to Sol, Chorus, Minix, and Linux to
name a few quickly.  In fact, AT&T did check on the Mark Williams code
base.   Dennis once wrote about having to check out the sources for the
lawyers.   As I understand it, the AT&T team concluded that while the MW
team may not have directly taken the AT&T code, the MW folks clearly had
seen it [which the Mark Williams folks I do not believe ever denied].  AT&T
chose not to pursue them.  It was not until BSDi/UCB that they literally
made of case of it.  Which again was why so many of us thought that case
was about copyright, not trade secrets.   It had never been really
discussed with us ->> on the outside<< of BTL (it would later learn from
Dennis and few others that they had discussed TS with their lawyers at some
point).


Your thinking would be reasonable *iff* AT&T had won the case, but the fact
is the ideas (IP) and even the source to the basic UNIX was open and
available.  The IP was published by but in places like CACM and from
Prentiss-Hall.  Larry's point is a solid one, is that *to get access *was
limited by having the *means to afford the licenses* but more importantly
it was having the *means to afford the hardware* to run it.  So until a
computer and 'mortal could own' on his own, AND that could support UNIX
*(i.e.* a 386-based PC), the issue was moot.

I point out that the 1956 consent decree *>>required<<* AT&T to make UNIX
(like the transistor before that) available to all *'interested parties*'
(see Pinheiro J. (1987). “AT&T Divestiture & the Telecommunications
Market”, Berkeley Technical Law Journal, 303, September 1987, Volume 2,
Issue 2, Article 5 if you don't believe me).   They had to make it
available to research folks and we allowed to license its use to commercial
people using 'fair and reasonable licensing terms regulated by the US Gov.
  You can suggest that $20K was unreasonable for personal use, but again it
was not unreasonable for a University ($150) or for the commercial sector
for that matter and those were the people buying the computers in those
times.

The practice of the day was to make the sources (which of course were
written in assembler) to the customers of your hardware.  And by the way,
IBM was not going to 'sue your pants off' as you mentioned.  The first
'clone market' was in fact the IBM 360 clones and IBM licensed their SW to
non-IBM HW customers (like Amdahl, Nixdorf, and NEC to name 3) because IBM
was afraid of being sued by the US Gov!!!   It was folks like DEC that sued
Cal Data for 'cloning the PDP-11,' not IBM.

Yes, UNIX was licensed and yes the IP was owned by AT&T.  But that's really
not much different than a GPL2 which is licensed and owned by someone
else.  The rules of use are different, however.  But the source was just as
open.  A difference was how it was distributed (you had to be part of the
club in Larry's terms) but anyone that could pay the HW fees could join the
club.

Larry has made an excellent point (which I agree with), is that in practice
it was clubby.  But in my defense ... the was the same club as before.  You
had to have the hardware and the need.  But if you had that you could get
to it.  Hey Ted, you were part of that club too -- you had access to things
at MIT Athena that most people did not see.  MIT had paid the club fees and
gotten the HW.  Frankly, you personally had way more access to the sources
as an MIT undergrad with a job at Athena, than say, Larry did at U Wis.

What changed was Moore's law and who afford (and thus get access) to the HW
and *economics associated with the desire to obtain* but please don't try
to say the behavior or intent was any different.   It just was not.   We
once called this the 'hacker culture' -- we are all in it together and we
shared what we had with each other.

FWIW:  this is has been discussed in other books and areas too.   It was
noted that the late 1960s 'hippie' sharing culture around the SFO area
played into too.   Steve Levy's wonderful book 'Hackers' talks about it
from the MIT Model RR club.  In fact, the last chapter of his book is
dedicated to RMS and calls him 'the last hacker.'

Methinks the horse is dead  ... you can think it's new.  It just was not.
You can say, UNIX closed because you came upon it a timer when the versions
that mattered (SunOS/Solaris/Ultrix/AIX/etc...)were becoming less available
to you as a user.   But the fact is the core material of UNIX was open.  We
all had access to it that's what made it great.  We did and could access
and change it.  We could share it.  Sometimes we chose to clone it.
Sometimes we even improved on it (and sometimes like systemd, we can argue
if we did).

It did not become more of a 'closed' until the HW economics changed the
rules, which just happens to be when you and others came of age.  Which is
fine, just please, please, please respect that the whole FOSS movement got
its start because of foundations and ideas that came long before.   The
cool part is the because of the new economics, you were able to do
something with it and expand it.  I do celebrate and laud you for that.
But I do also ask that your respect the foundation which gave you that
start.

Clem
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 12211 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
@ 2021-07-19 20:21                             ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-20  1:05                             ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-19 20:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: John P. Linderman; +Cc: COFF, Grant Taylor


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2862 bytes --]

And remember add in the copyright to that does not come about until much,
much later in UNIX's life.  After Judge Green and after the cat was out of
the bag, and when AT&T was allowed to be in the computer business.   Pre
Judge Green - if you go in the V7 source that Warren has you will see:

[ctcole-mac09:ResearchEditions/v7_SeventhEdition/V7_FileTree] ctcole% cat
bin/true
[ctcole-mac09:ResearchEditions/v7_SeventhEdition/V7_FileTree] ctcole% cat
bin/false
exit 1
[ctcole-mac09:ResearchEditions/v7_SeventhEdition/V7_FileTree] ctcole% ll
bin/{false,true}
-rwxrwxr-x  1 ctcole  staff  - 7 Jan 10  1979 bin/false
-rwxrwxr-x  1 ctcole  staff  - 0 Jan 10  1979 bin/true
ᐧ

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 3:33 PM John P. Linderman <jpl.jpl@gmail.com> wrote:

> Ted observed:
>
> I always thought the implementation of /bin/true, which was a shell
> script where the license statement proclaiming AT&T's copyright was
> longer than the "exit 0" line, was both incredibly funny, and
> incredibly sad.
>
>
> It's been a long time since I looked at the AT&T source, but I recall that
> the version number was pushing 2 digits. It's hard to get it "wrong" on
> the first try
> (although I could possibly do it). More likely, the version numbers
> reflected
> changes to the licensing wording. -- jpl
>
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 1:38 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 10:50:07AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
>> >
>> > Ted -- yes, your generation put a >>name<< to the behavior, which is a
>> > wonderful thing and something you can be proud.  But the behavior of
>> openly
>> > sharing your work product with the community long predates, Linux, the
>> > wider Internet, *et al. * It is sad a minimum, if not downright
>> > disingenuous to say "open source" was created at that point.
>>
>> No one said that "open source" was created at that point.  The perl,
>> BSD, FSF's emacs, gcc, and other software published under the GPL all
>> predated the definition of the **term** "Open Source".
>>
>> However, I strongly contest the claim that Unix was "Open Source".
>> Unix was the UNPUBLISHED TRADE SECRET of AT&T, and students exposed to
>> Unix source code became contaminated with AT&T's "methods and
>> concepts" clause.  So they couldn't even *reimplement* Unix without
>> potentially getting sued by AT&T.
>>
>> I always thought the implementation of /bin/true, which was a shell
>> script where the license statement proclaiming AT&T's copyright was
>> longer than the "exit 0" line, was both incredibly funny, and
>> incredibly sad.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>>                                                 - Ted
>> _______________________________________________
>> COFF mailing list
>> COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
>> https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff
>>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 4940 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-20  0:55                             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-20  0:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: COFF

On Mon, Jul 19, 2021 at 04:08:34PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> Your thinking would be reasonable *iff* AT&T had won the case, but the fact
> is the ideas (IP) and even the source to the basic UNIX was open and
> available.

And yet, much is made by the *BSD's that the reason why Linux won and
*BSD's lost the battle of mindshare was because of the AT&T lawsuit.
The FUD caused by the copyright and the license *did* have an impact.
Which is why I believe the Open Source Definition matters, and why
it's important that we make a sharp distinction between "Source
Available" and "Open Source".

The license matters.  Just making the code out there, but restricting
under various clauses or "you have to be in the club"[1] is not enough.

[1] Or worse, in the case of Audacity, where the new copyright holders
attempted to add spyware and then to stay out of trouble in the
E.U. tried to restrict usage of the software to people over the age of
18 --- in violation of the GPL and the Open Source Definition.

This is why insisting on this distinction is so important, and not
letting people try to weasel out of saying, "the source is available
but we can jerk you around and possibly add extra conditions, and
possibly threaten to sue any competitors" is NOT OK.

	 	     	     		     	 - Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
  2021-07-19 20:21                             ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-20  1:05                             ` Grant Taylor via COFF
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Grant Taylor via COFF @ 2021-07-20  1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: coff


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 268 bytes --]

On 7/19/21 1:33 PM, John P. Linderman wrote:
> It's hard to get it "wrong" on the first try (although I could possibly 

> do it).

IBM's IEFBR14 comes to mind.

Link - IEFBR14
  - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEFBR14



-- 
Grant. . . .
unix || die


[-- Attachment #1.2: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature --]
[-- Type: application/pkcs7-signature, Size: 4013 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS]  386BSD released
  2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
  2021-07-14 18:28         ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-14 20:03         ` John Cowan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: John Cowan @ 2021-07-14 20:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1158 bytes --]

[-TUHS]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:41 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:


>  If AT&T were still trying to
> sell Unix under its original terms including the AT&T Unpublished
> Trade Secret "all your student's minds belong to us" license, and
> tried to claim that Unix was "Open Source", the Open Source Initiative
> could sue AT&T for trademark infringement.
>

"Open Source" has never been an OSI trademark, possibly because "open
source" is a technical term for intelligence whose source is publicly
available, such as books, newspapers, and magazines.  OSI's trademarks are
"OSI", "Open Source Initiative", and the green logo.  "Open Source" was
applied for by Software in the Public Interest as a certification mark
signifying compliance with the OSD in 1998, but was abandoned the following
year.

The term is also an (irrelevant because non-conflicting) trademark for an
Irish company for "research and consultancy services in the field of
sustainable food and drink product development" and "whey protein for use
as an emulsifier or binding agent in food", and for a New York company for
"muzzle brakes that screw onto a rifle barrel".

>
>

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 2155 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
@ 2021-07-14 18:28         ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-14 20:03         ` John Cowan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-14 18:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3133 bytes --]

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 1:40 PM Theodore Y. Ts'o <tytso@mit.edu> wrote:

> On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:01:58AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> > By formal definition, the tarball and the rest of UNIX from Research is
> and
> > always has been, '*Open Source*' in the sources were available.  *But
> they
> > were licensed*.  This was fairly typical of much early software BTW.  The
> > binary nature only came about with the minicomputers.
>
Please don't go here (again).   Yes, it has been trademarked, but
the official trademarked term is different from reality --> just like the
guy that got a copyright for email and claims to have invented it.  People
were 'open sourcing' software before you and I were born.  They just did
not have a name for it - thank you.

The real 'father' of Open Source as we think of it today was Prof Don
Pederson and his Industrial Liaison Office (ILO) of the EE Dept of UCB in
the late 1960s -- long before rms, et al.   As 'dop' used to say, I give
everything away because then I go in the back door, not the front door like
a salesman.   MIT/CMU/Stanford et al we often licensing their work.  In
many ways, CMU and Stanford were two of the worst.  The ILO gave away all
its products.  We would not have the current electronics industry without
the work dop and his students produced.  As I have also pointed in
other email tapes like the original, '1BSD' was managed and distributed by
the ILO because dop had set of the infrastructure 10-15 years earlier to
send out mag tapes and other IP to 'interested parties.'

Yes, computer networks changed the distribution and access medium, but
please refrain from trying to rewrite history.   The GNU project and FOSS
movement that was created took the idea and advanced it, making use of
better ways of communicating the ideas, removing the academic clubiness as
Larry suggested.  Larry is right, if you were a peer organization or maybe
a patron of same, getting source was possible.

As rms noted, at some point the sources to things go harder and harder to
get access.   ITS, WAITS, and even CTSS were all written at a time when you
go from IBM and DEC their sources - typically on  7 or 9 track mag-tape and
were usually available on microfiche.   You also got the circuit schematics
too.  Local modifications to both HW and SW were normal.

But starting with the Minis this began to change and it started to get
harder and harder.  SW started being a revenue source for those companies
-- DEC in particular, so they started to be hold back the sources.  The
rest is history...    Folks like rms objected because the behavior they
were used to had changed and he and people like him, could do nothing about
it.  So he created the Gnu project to compete with those commercial
products.

But just like have been getting 'email' since the late 1960s/early 1970s on
my computers, it was not named.  Someone body claimed the name later.   But
the function was old.  The same is for sharing software written and given
away, now we have a name and a way to describe the behavior.


Cheers
Clem



ᐧ

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 5319 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS]   386BSD released
  2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
@ 2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
  2021-07-14 18:28         ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-14 20:03         ` John Cowan
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2021-07-14 17:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Theodore Y. Ts'o
  Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 01:40:53PM -0400, Theodore Y. Ts'o wrote:
> If you must, you could try to claim that AT&T was "Source Available"
> --- which is a terminology I've seen some used.  But I think your
> assumptions of how easily the AT&T License could be obtained, and how
> "anyone who wanted it could get it" may be looking at the past with
> rose-colored classes.

Clem was in "the club".  I do remember those times, barely, I was a 
bit too young to have a clear view of things.  But it certainly
seemed like some Universities made the source pretty available.
UW Madison was not one of those, I had to beg and plead to get 
access to the source.

So Clem's memory is fine, his experience was you could get the source.
But that wasn't the universal experience at all, and I agree with
Ted that just getting access to the source doesn't make it remotely
open source.  
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
  2021-07-14 15:01     ` Clem Cole
@ 2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
                           ` (2 more replies)
  0 siblings, 3 replies; 31+ messages in thread
From: Theodore Y. Ts'o @ 2021-07-14 17:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: Computer Old Farts Followers, The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 11:01:58AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> By formal definition, the tarball and the rest of UNIX from Research is and
> always has been, '*Open Source*' in the sources were available.  *But they
> were licensed*.  This was fairly typical of much early software BTW.  The
> binary nature only came about with the minicomputers.

It may have been "Open Source" by your definition, but there is a very
specific definition of "Open Source(tm)" and it has always been, from
the beginning, defined to mean code licensed under terms which meet
the Open Source Definition[1] (OSD).  The AT&T license, for better or
for worse does not mean the terms of the OSD.

[1] https://opensource.org/osd

> The sources in the tarball were not '*Free and Open Source*' -- which
> becomes the crux of the issue.  [Sadly the OSS folks have confused this
> over the years and that important detail is lost].

Hardly.  "Free and Open Source" (FOSS) is a term which developed
*after* the the term "Open Source" was coined and trademarked.  That
term was not created by the "OSS folks", but by people who were trying
the solve a political problem.  The GPL meets the definition of the
Open Source Definition, so GPL-licensed software is "Open Source(tm)".
But Stallman objected to that usage, preferring his terminology "Free
Software" on the grounds that it came first.  So FOSS was a compromise
to keep the FSF partisan happy.

But to take this back to TUHS, sorry, no code which falls under AT&T
License can be called "Open Source(tm)".  If AT&T were still trying to
sell Unix under its original terms including the AT&T Unpublished
Trade Secret "all your student's minds belong to us" license, and
tried to claim that Unix was "Open Source", the Open Source Initiative
could sue AT&T for trademark infringement.

If you must, you could try to claim that AT&T was "Source Available"
--- which is a terminology I've seen some used.  But I think your
assumptions of how easily the AT&T License could be obtained, and how
"anyone who wanted it could get it" may be looking at the past with
rose-colored classes.

Cheers,

					- Ted
_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

* Re: [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released
       [not found]   ` <CAE49LGn-gY9eikkwUgS+i3p=ZQV+gk_3BJ5V4_6B4HPbdyRuZw@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2021-07-14 15:01     ` Clem Cole
  2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 31+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2021-07-14 15:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Computer Old Farts Followers; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5286 bytes --]

Sigh ... Warren I am going to ask for your indulgence once here on TUHS as
I try to get any *new* discussion moved to COFF, but I guess it's time to
renew this history as enough people have joined the list since the last
time this was all discussed ...  I'll do this once -- please take any other
discussion off this list.  It has been argued too many times.   Many of the
actors in this drama are part of the list.  Sadly we have lost a few,
sometimes because of the silliness of the argument/trying to give people
credit or not/person preferences, etc.

If you want to comment, please go back and read both the TUHS and COFF
archives and I suspect your point may have already been made.   *If you
really do have something new, please move to COFF.*

On Wed, Jul 14, 2021 at 4:21 AM Angus Robinson <angus@fairhaven.za.net>
wrote:

> Looking at a few online sources, Linus actually said when "386BSD came
> out, Linux was already in a usable state, that I never really thought about
> switching. If 386BSD had been available when I started on Linux, Linux
> would probably never had happened".
>
A number of us, such as Larry and I have discussed this a bunch both online
and in person.   What would become 386BSD was actually available as early
as 1988, but you needed to know the public FTP address of where to get it
at UCB (which the UCB licensees had access to that FTP server).  Bostic was
still working on what would become the 'NET' release, but this tarball
offered a bootable system and did have things in it that later AT&T would
require UCB to remove.  In fact, this system would have X10 ported to it
and was a reasonably complete 'distro' in today's terms.

By formal definition, the tarball and the rest of UNIX from Research is and
always has been, '*Open Source*' in the sources were available.  *But they
were licensed*.  This was fairly typical of much early software BTW.  The
binary nature only came about with the minicomputers.

The tarball in question was fairly easy to find in the wild but to use the
sources as a system, you technically needed an AT&T license.  An
practically you needed access to a BSD box to rebuild them, which took a
license - although by then SunOS was probably close enough - although I do
not know anyone that tried it.

The sources in the tarball were not '*Free and Open Source*' -- which
becomes the crux of the issue.  [Sadly the OSS folks have confused this
over the years and that important detail is lost].   Many people, such as
myself, when the AT&T suite began got worried and started hacking on  Linux
at that point as the not nearly as mature but sort of works version without
networking or graphics had appeared [386BSD had both and a real installer -
more in a minute]

FWIW: Linus could have had access to the BSD for a 386 tarball if we had
asked in the right place. But as he has said later in time, he wanted to
write his own OS and did not both ask the right folks at his University, or
try to get permission.   Although he has said he access to Sun3 and has
said that was his impetus for his work.   This is an important point that
Larry reminds us of, many institutions kept the sources locked away like
his U of Wis.   Other places were like liberal about access.  IIRC Larry
sometimes refers to it as the "UNIX Club."

In my own case, I was running what would become 386BSD on my Wyse 32:16 box
at home and on an NCR 386 based system in Clemson as I was consulting for
them at the time.  I also helped Bill with the PC/AT disk driver[WD1003 and
later WD7000/SCSI controllers], as I had access to the docs from WD which
Bill did not.  I think I still have a photocopy of them.

What basically happened is as BSDi forked and that begets a number of
things, from hurt feelings to a famous law suite.   A number of us, thought
the latter was about copyright (we were wrong it was about trade secret).
We were worried that the AT&T copyright would cause UNIX for an inexpensive
processor to disappear.   We >>thought<< (incorrectly) that the copyright
that Linux was using, the GPL, would save us.  Turns out >>legally<< it
would not have, if AT&T had won, at least in the USA and most NATO Allies -
the trade secret applied to all implementations of Ken, Dennis, and the
rest of the BTL folk's ideas.  All of the Unix-like systems were in
violation at this point.  BSDi/UCB was where AT&T started.  The problem is
that while the court found that AT&T did create and own the >>ideas<< (note
ideas are not the source code implementation of the ideas), they could not
call the UNIX 'IP', trade secrets since the AT&T people published them all
both academically in books like Maury Bach's, much less they had been
forced by the 1956 consent decree to make the license available, they had
taught an industry.  BTW:  It's not just software, the transistor 'gets
out' of AT&T under the same type of rules.

In reality, like PGP, since there was lots of UNIX-based IP in other
places, it hard to see in practice how AT&T could have enforced the trade
secret.  But again -- remember Charlie Brown (AT&T CEO) wants to go after
IBM, thinking the big money in computers in the mainframe.  So they did
believe that they could exert pressure on UNIX-like systems for the higher
end, and they might have been able to enforce that.

[-- Attachment #1.2: Type: text/html, Size: 8156 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/plain, Size: 141 bytes --]

_______________________________________________
COFF mailing list
COFF@minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/coff

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 31+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2021-07-20  1:05 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 31+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
     [not found] <7wtukxtgag.fsf@junk.nocrew.org>
     [not found] ` <CAKH6PiVCjo3YnTZUVYOCDeffQ6POVwGAQA1QMR9UinkfGn+AmQ@mail.gmail.com>
2021-07-15  6:33   ` [COFF] [TUHS] 386BSD released Michael Kjörling
2021-07-15 20:44     ` Derek Fawcus
2021-07-15 15:07   ` Clem Cole
2021-07-15 19:33     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-15 20:30       ` Clem Cole
2021-07-16  1:58         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-16  2:14           ` George Michaelson
2021-07-16 18:02           ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-17  4:09             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-17  6:30               ` [COFF] " Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
2021-07-17 12:37                 ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-17 13:30                   ` Tom Ivar Helbekkmo via COFF
2021-07-18  3:29               ` [COFF] [TUHS] " Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-18  3:42                 ` David Arnold
2021-07-18  4:01                   ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-19 13:41                     ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-19 14:50                       ` Clem Cole
2021-07-19 17:38                         ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-19 19:33                           ` John P. Linderman
2021-07-19 20:21                             ` Clem Cole
2021-07-20  1:05                             ` Grant Taylor via COFF
2021-07-19 20:08                           ` Clem Cole
2021-07-20  0:55                             ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-18  6:44                   ` Andy Kosela
2021-07-16 16:11         ` Jonathan Corbet
2021-07-15 23:02       ` joe mcguckin
     [not found] <alpine.BSF.2.21.9999.2107140824460.15723@aneurin.horsfall.org>
     [not found] ` <213a4c11-3ab2-4b4a-8d6b-b52105a19711@localhost>
     [not found]   ` <CAE49LGn-gY9eikkwUgS+i3p=ZQV+gk_3BJ5V4_6B4HPbdyRuZw@mail.gmail.com>
2021-07-14 15:01     ` Clem Cole
2021-07-14 17:40       ` Theodore Y. Ts'o
2021-07-14 17:50         ` Larry McVoy
2021-07-14 18:28         ` Clem Cole
2021-07-14 20:03         ` John Cowan

Computer Old Farts Forum

This inbox may be cloned and mirrored by anyone:

	git clone --mirror http://inbox.vuxu.org/coff

	# If you have public-inbox 1.1+ installed, you may
	# initialize and index your mirror using the following commands:
	public-inbox-init -V1 coff coff/ http://inbox.vuxu.org/coff \
		coff@minnie.tuhs.org
	public-inbox-index coff

Example config snippet for mirrors.
Newsgroup available over NNTP:
	nntp://inbox.vuxu.org/vuxu.archive.coff


AGPL code for this site: git clone https://public-inbox.org/public-inbox.git