[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[macbiesz]

Perhaps v7upgrade would make a nice combination with the 32I kernel.

http://www.southern-storm.com.au/v7upgrade.html

Maciek

> >
> > 3. Gcc is tool chain unless someone wants to take on 32V 
> compiler.  May
> > take advantage of inline and asm in machine dependent files.
> >
> > I wouldn't recommend using the 32V compiler, mainly because there
> > are so many syntax changes, as well as newer compiler technology,
> > missing from it as to make it a very challenging project.
> 
> There are a couple of options here.  One is to use one of the 
> compilersfrom MIT that will match the code in 32V very closely.  
> You can google for
> these if they aren't already on Warren's site.  The other option
> is to use LCC.  I wouldn't use GCC if I were doing it.  (Of course 
> I'm not
> so these are just suggestions.)>

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[patv]

1. Converted unpublished locore to AT&T syntax.  Work still underway on
   new locore.S file.

2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI.  The
   latter is TBD.

3. Gcc is tool chain unless someone wants to take on 32V compiler.  May
   take advantage of inline and asm in machine dependent files.

   I wouldn't recommend using the 32V compiler, mainly because there
   are so many syntax changes, as well as newer compiler technology,
   missing from it as to make it a very challenging project.

4. Gcc cross compile to be used for building.  I'll make this available
   later next month, after I shake out the bugs.

5. May go to Bitkeeper for source control. More to follow.

6. License for all new files to be the "revised BSD license."  This is
   compatible with the Caldera license, an "original BSD license" with
   the advertising clause specific to Caldera.  I want to keep it open
   source, and this is the best compromise I see for project license.

7. May change spln() to more understandable nomenclature, e.g., spl4()
   becomes spltty(), similar to BSD practice.

8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
   can't for obvious trademark reasons.

   Project name still up for grabs.  I was thinking of UNX, named after
   the old DEC name for the facility I work in.  Sort of a tribute to
   days gone by, as is porting 32V.  Probably get into trouble for that
   one as well.


---------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Monmouth Internet MI-Webmail.
http://www.monmouth.com/

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[Brantley Coile]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 11:40:24 EST, <patv at monmouth.com> wrote:

> 1. Converted unpublished locore to AT&T syntax.  Work still underway on
> new locore.S file.
>
> 2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI.  The
> latter is TBD.

Please don't do that.  There is no value in being Sys V ABI compliant and
the original a.out work very well.  I've used it for two and a half
decades now, and still use it on Plan 9.  There just needs to be magic
numbers for the various formats.  I would suggest looking at the
10Edition information for things that arn't as they currently are.

>
> 3. Gcc is tool chain unless someone wants to take on 32V compiler.  May
> take advantage of inline and asm in machine dependent files.
>
> I wouldn't recommend using the 32V compiler, mainly because there
> are so many syntax changes, as well as newer compiler technology,
> missing from it as to make it a very challenging project.

There are a couple of options here.  One is to use one of the compilers
from MIT that will match the code in 32V very closely.  You can google for
these if they aren't already on Warren's site.  The other option
is to use LCC.  I wouldn't use GCC if I were doing it.  (Of course I'm not
so these are just suggestions.)
>
> 4. Gcc cross compile to be used for building.  I'll make this available
> later next month, after I shake out the bugs.
>
> 5. May go to Bitkeeper for source control. More to follow.
>
> 6. License for all new files to be the "revised BSD license."  This is
> compatible with the Caldera license, an "original BSD license" with
> the advertising clause specific to Caldera.  I want to keep it open
> source, and this is the best compromise I see for project license.
>
> 7. May change spln() to more understandable nomenclature, e.g., spl4()
> becomes spltty(), similar to BSD practice.
>
> 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
> can't for obvious trademark reasons.

I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix 
32v.
I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
that it's not Unix 32V anymore.

>
> Project name still up for grabs.  I was thinking of UNX, named after
> the old DEC name for the facility I work in.  Sort of a tribute to
> days gone by, as is porting 32V.  Probably get into trouble for that
> one as well.
>

  Brantley

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <oprysw7gl4ceuadk at smtp.borf.com>
            Brantley Coile <bwc at coraid.com> writes:
: > 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
: > can't for obvious trademark reasons.
: 
: I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
: disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix 
: 32v.
: I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
: that it's not Unix 32V anymore.

Just because you have a piece of code that was marketed under
tradename Foo(R) doesn't mean that you have the right to use that
trade name to market the code.  I'd steer clear of the Unix name
unless you want the Open Group to contact you (and they will when they
find out about your use).  While the Open Group is fairly easy to work
with, there are a number of non-negotiable uses of the word Unix that
they will not permit.  This is one of them.

Warner

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[Brantley Coile]

On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:17:25 -0700 (MST), M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> 
wrote:

> In message: <oprysw7gl4ceuadk at smtp.borf.com>
> Brantley Coile <bwc at coraid.com> writes:
> : > 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, 
> but
> : > can't for obvious trademark reasons.
> : : I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
> : disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS 
> Unix : 32v.
> : I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
> : that it's not Unix 32V anymore.
>
> Just because you have a piece of code that was marketed under
> tradename Foo(R) doesn't mean that you have the right to use that
> trade name to market the code.  I'd steer clear of the Unix name
> unless you want the Open Group to contact you (and they will when they
> find out about your use).  While the Open Group is fairly easy to work
> with, there are a number of non-negotiable uses of the word Unix that
> they will not permit.  This is one of them.
>
> Warner
>


I'm no lawyer but I find it hard to believe that if I have a DEC
computer and I refurbish it and give it away that Intel, or HP, or
whoever wound up with the trademark can say anything about it.
There is a huge difference between marketing a product using
a name and a distribution for something that is called UNIX
in the document giving premission to distribute it.  It was
and is UNIX.  Let's call it UNIX.  Can Ken and Dennis be sued
for saying they invented UNIX?

One part of the law suit against BSDI was that they said IT'S UNIX.
1-800-its-unix, and it wasn't, it was BSD.  This is UNIX.

  Brantley

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <oprys0axwyceuadk at smtp.borf.com>
            Brantley Coile <bwc at coraid.com> writes:
: On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 15:17:25 -0700 (MST), M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> 
: wrote:
: > In message: <oprysw7gl4ceuadk at smtp.borf.com>
: > Brantley Coile <bwc at coraid.com> writes:
: > : > 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, 
: > but
: > : > can't for obvious trademark reasons.
: > : : I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
: > : disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS 
: > Unix : 32v.
: > : I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
: > : that it's not Unix 32V anymore.
: >
: > Just because you have a piece of code that was marketed under
: > tradename Foo(R) doesn't mean that you have the right to use that
: > trade name to market the code.  I'd steer clear of the Unix name
: > unless you want the Open Group to contact you (and they will when they
: > find out about your use).  While the Open Group is fairly easy to work
: > with, there are a number of non-negotiable uses of the word Unix that
: > they will not permit.  This is one of them.
: >
: > Warner
: >
: 
: 
: I'm no lawyer but I find it hard to believe that if I have a DEC
: computer and I refurbish it and give it away that Intel, or HP, or
: whoever wound up with the trademark can say anything about it.

If you have modified it, creating some mutant thing, they likely can.
Also, there's a fundamental difference between reselling hardware, and
taking software, hacking it and selling it under a name that is
active, even if this software is an earlier version of that name.

: There is a huge difference between marketing a product using
: a name and a distribution for something that is called UNIX
: in the document giving premission to distribute it. It was
: and is UNIX.  Let's call it UNIX.  Can Ken and Dennis be sued
: for saying they invented UNIX?

But since they Ken and Dennis, by way of their former employers, have
sold the rights to the name Unix.  You are setting yourself up for a
call from the Open Group.  I've had to field a couple of those calls
from the Open Group while on FreeBSD core.  The provenance of the code
is not relevant: The Open Group has the the rights to the name Unix,
and you must pass a fairly extensive compatibility test before you are
allowed to use it.

FreeBSD can't even say it is Unix.  It can only say that it is Unix
like.  It is a lot closer to passing all the Unix branding tests than
V32.

: One part of the law suit against BSDI was that they said IT'S UNIX.
: 1-800-its-unix, and it wasn't, it was BSD.  This is UNIX.

Yes.  BSDi lost that part of the lawsuit.

If you want to set yourself up for legal problems, go for it.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to deal with IP lawyers while being on
FreeBSD core team and other places enough to know a problem area when
I see it.

Warner

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[Pat Villani]

M. Warner Losh wrote:
> I'm not a lawyer, but I've had to deal with IP lawyers while being on
> FreeBSD core team and other places enough to know a problem area when
> I see it.

Absolutely correct, Warner.  Even calling it UNX, after the DEC site 
code, is asking for trouble.  Needless to say, it won't be called unix, 
or anything similar, any time soon, if ever.

Pat

-- 
Most turkeys taste better the day after; my mother's tasted better the 
day before. -- Rita Rudner

[TUHS] 32I status as of 17 Nov 2003

[Pat Villani]

Brantley Coile wrote:
>> 2. Will use coff executable format. May comply with Sys V ABI.  The
>> latter is TBD.
> 
> 
> Please don't do that.  There is no value in being Sys V ABI compliant and
> the original a.out work very well.  I've used it for two and a half
> decades now, and still use it on Plan 9.  There just needs to be magic
> numbers for the various formats.  I would suggest looking at the
> 10Edition information for things that arn't as they currently are.

A large part of my decision is based on using the gcc tool chain.  Since
coff is one of the binary formats, and it was a unix format, I thought
it would work here as well.  I don't see a real need for the ABI, but
may do it if it is easy.

>> 8. 32I is the interim name.  I would have preferred Unix version 7, but
>> can't for obvious trademark reasons.
> 
> 
> I'm not sure if the current trademark owners can retro actively
> disassociate a mark after the fact.  If it WAS Unix 32V it still IS Unix 
> 32v.
> I suppose if you do much more than port it to Intel one could argue
> that it's not Unix 32V anymore.

I was one of many who represented DEC at the Open Group during Digital
UNIX certification.  I'm familiar with unix branding, and I know I can't
use the unix trademark, at least not without a lot of rework to the
original source and a lot of money to go to TOG for testing.

Technically, there is new, original code being developed that will be
combined with the original code.  This is a new product, even if the
original code was called unix.  Only the VAX binary can still be called
unix.

I'm an engineer, not a lawyer, but this is my understanding of the subject.

Pat

-- 
I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education. -- Wilson Mizner