[TUHS] Microsoft,SCO,and a certain License

[TUHS] Microsoft,SCO,and a certain License

[zme]

I find it interesting how Microsoft's name seems to pop up in Unix software.
There are quite a few times when Microsoft's name appears on the same
line as SCO's.

$ strings svr4.tar | grep -i microsoft | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn

[output attached]
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: microsoft.txt
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040305/548b83ef/attachment.txt>

[TUHS] Microsoft,SCO,and a certain License

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Friday,  5 March 2004 at 13:36:39 -0800, zme at hush.ai wrote:
> I find it interesting how Microsoft's name seems to pop up in Unix software.
> There are quite a few times when Microsoft's name appears on the same
> line as SCO's.
>
> $ strings svr4.tar | grep -i microsoft | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn
>
> [output attached]
>
> ?? ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@1^@7^@8^@	^@/^@*^@	^@C^@o^@p^@y^@r^@i^@g^@h^@t^@ ^@(^@c^@)^@ ^@1^@9^@8^@7^@,^@ ^@1^@9^@8^@8^@ ^@M^@i^@c^@r^@o^@s^@o^@f^@t^@ ^@C^@o^@r^@p^@o^@r^@a^@t^@i^@o^@n^@	^@*^@/^@
^@
> ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@ ^@1^@7^@0^@	^@/^@*^@	^@T^@h^@i^@s^@ ^@M^@o^@d^@u^@l^@e^@ ^@c^@o^@n^@t^@a^@i^@n^@s^@ ^@P^@r^@o^@p^@r^@i^@e^@t^@a^@r^@y^@ ^@I^@n^@f^@o^@r^@m^@a^@t^@i^@o^@n^@ ^@o^@f^@ ^@M^@i^@c^@r^@o^@s^@o^@f^@t^@ ^@ ^@*^@/^@
^@

Is this unicode?  It would look better converted:

>     178	/*	Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation	*/
>     170	/*	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft  */
>      63	/	Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
>      53	#	Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
>      47	/	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
>      41	#	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
>      16	/	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft 
>      13	#	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft 
>      10	 *	The Santa Cruz Operation, Microsoft Corporation

SVR4 contains XENIX compatibility code.  XENIX was written for
Microsoft by SCO.

>       6	#ifdef MICROSOFT
>       6	 *	Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1984, 1985, 1986, 1987.
>       3	Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.\nAll Rights Reserved\n",
>       3	/*	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft 	*/
>       2	mcs    -a "@(#) Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp." unix
>       2	echo "		This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft"
>       2	echo "			Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation"
>       2	 * request from a node that wants to talk Microsoft's MS-NET Core
>       2		Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.
>       1	echo "            This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft"
>       1	echo "                 Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation"
>       1	0	short		0x206		Microsoft a.out
>       1	0	short		0x140		old Microsoft 8086 x.out
>       1	0	long		0x140		old Microsoft 8086 x.out
>       1	0	byte		0x80		8086 relocatable (Microsoft)
>       1	/*      This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft  */
>       1	/*      Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation  */
>       1	**      modified by Hans Spiller, Microsoft to handle \r better July 23, 82
>       1	*       This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
>       1	*       Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
>       1	*	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
>       1	*	Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation
>       1	#define V86VI_MOUSE     0x00000020      /* Microsoft mouse              */
>       1	#	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft  
>       1	#	Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corporation	
>       1	 * Definitions for Lotus/Intel/Microsoft Expanded Memory Emulation
>       1	 *      some extension are requested to consult with Microsoft to see
>       1	 *      made a part of standard OS.  Microsoft feels that this is
>       1	 *      Microsoft's policy is to minimize the incompatibilities between
>       1	 *	This Module contains Proprietary Information of Microsoft
>       1	 *	Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1984-7.
>       1	 *	Copyright (C) Microsoft Corporation, 1983
>       1	 *		 7-05-85	Rich Patterson	Added support for Microsoft
>       1	 *		 6-20-85	Rich Patterson	Added support for Microsoft
>       1		signal (SIGFPE,bswap_sig);	/* needed if fp is microsoft */
>       1		cmn_err(CE_CONT, "Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.\n");
>       1		MS-DOS is a trademark of Microsoft Corporation
>       1		Copyright (C) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp
>       1			 * CAVEAT: Microsoft changed rename for Microsoft C V3.0.

Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040306/14f0e850/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Jim Capp]

On Fri, Mar 05, 2004 at 10:40:14AM -0500, Larry J. Blunk wrote:
> 
>  Microsoft and SCO have been very coy about what it is that Microsoft
> actually licensed.  I believe the closest they have come to explaining
> it can be found in a Byte interview by Trevor Marshall --
> http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
> where Chris Sontag of SCO is quoted as saying that Microsoft merely
> licensed an "applications interface layer."
> 
>   I take this to mean they are probably talking about header files
> like errno.h, signal.h, etc.   I believe that Microsoft development
> products have iterations of these and they only have Microsoft copyright
> notices in them (no AT&T or BSD notices).   SFU would have them
> as well, although I'm not sure what copyright notices are on those.
> SCO claims that the lack of a copyright notices violates the USL vs.
> BSDi settlement.  Of course, this claim is extremely tenuous (since
> Microsoft's headers files origination likely predates the settlement
> and were derived independently from public sources).
> 
>   In the end, I strongly suspect this was a way for Microsoft to funnel
> money to SCO to attack Linux as opposed to Microsoft claims of
> "respecting Intellectual Property Rights."
>  

I think it's very odd that Microsoft would need a license from SCO
at all.  Isn't it true that before there was SCO, there was Microsoft
XENIX?  I find it hard to believe that Microsoft would have divested itself
of all rights in XENIX (including the headers above) when spinning off
SCO.

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Larry J. Blunk]

On Sun, 2004-02-29 at 02:34, Wesley Parish wrote:
> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about 
> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU 
> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name, 
> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of 
> the Windows kernel and Win32 API.
> 
> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of 
> the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?  If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and 
> Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people, 
> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt?
> 
> This isn't definite, of course - some details I'm not sure of.  But I think if 
> this is so, we have some very interesting few years to look forward to.


 Microsoft and SCO have been very coy about what it is that Microsoft
actually licensed.  I believe the closest they have come to explaining
it can be found in a Byte interview by Trevor Marshall --
http://www.byte.com/documents/s=8276/byt1055784622054/0616_marshall.html
where Chris Sontag of SCO is quoted as saying that Microsoft merely
licensed an "applications interface layer."

  I take this to mean they are probably talking about header files
like errno.h, signal.h, etc.   I believe that Microsoft development
products have iterations of these and they only have Microsoft copyright
notices in them (no AT&T or BSD notices).   SFU would have them
as well, although I'm not sure what copyright notices are on those.
SCO claims that the lack of a copyright notices violates the USL vs.
BSDi settlement.  Of course, this claim is extremely tenuous (since
Microsoft's headers files origination likely predates the settlement
and were derived independently from public sources).

  In the end, I strongly suspect this was a way for Microsoft to funnel
money to SCO to attack Linux as opposed to Microsoft claims of
"respecting Intellectual Property Rights."
 

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Monday,  1 March 2004 at  0:46:35 -0000, Roger Willcocks wrote:
>> Hmm.  In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not
>> stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD.
>
> See Q306819 -
> http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q306819 - Release
> Notes for Windows XP Contained in the Relnotes.htm File:
>
> ---snip---
> This product includes software developed by the University of California,
> Berkeley and its contributors.
>
> ...
> ---snip---
>
> although I would question whether there's an acknowledgement in all
> related advertising materials...

I suspect that that's sufficient.  The advertising clause has always
been a bone of contention.

Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040301/bee44c87/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Roger Willcocks]

> Hmm.  In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not
> stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD.

See Q306819 -
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;EN-US;q306819 - Release
Notes for Windows XP Contained in the Relnotes.htm File:

---snip---
This product includes software developed by the University of California,
Berkeley and its contributors.

Portions of this product are based in part on the work of the Regents of the
University of California, Berkeley and its contributors. Because Microsoft
has included the Regents of the University of California, Berkeley, software
in this product, Microsoft is required to include the following text that
accompanied such software:

Copyright 1985, 1988 Regents of the University of California. All rights
reserved.

Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided
that the above copyright notice and this paragraph are duplicated in all
such forms and that any documentation, advertising materials, and other
materials related to such distribution and use acknowledge that the software
was developed by the University of California, Berkeley. The name of the
University may not be used to endorse or promote products derived from this
software without specific prior written permission. THIS SOFTWARE IS
PROVIDED "AS IS" AND WITHOUT ANY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING,
WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTIBILITY AND FITNESS
FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
---snip---

although I would question whether there's an acknowledgement in all related
advertising materials...

--
Roger


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@lemis.com>
To: "Paul Ward" <asmodai at ao.mine.nu>
Cc: "Wesley Parish" <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>; <TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog@lemis.com>
To: "Paul Ward" <asmodai at ao.mine.nu>
Cc: "Wesley Parish" <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>; <TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, February 29, 2004 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License


> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Kurt Wall]

In a 0.7K blaze of typing glory, Jon Snader wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 06:24:30PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > 
> > The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from
> > OpenBSD.  This sounds very unlikely to me.  If it were the case, why
> > would they pay anything to SCO?
> > 
> 
> I have no idea whether Microsoft based SFU on OpenBSD or not, but
> the conventional wisdom on Groklaw, the SCOX Yahoo Finance Board,
> and similar domains that are following the SCO issue is that Microsoft's
> purchase of the license was a backdoor way of financing an attack on
> Linux.  I don't whether that's true either, but it does provide an
> answer to your question.

That was my initial thought, too. I decided that the idea that Microsfot
would purchase a license as a business tactic was just too paranoid or 
perverse and lumped it in the same category as lining my hat with aluminum
foil to disrupt the government's mind control experiments. Lately, I'm not
so sure. If Ronald Reagan can call ketchup a vegetable, Bill Clinton can
debate the meaning of the word "is", then Microsoft could well have
purchased a license from SCO, insofar as the $10 or $20 million is pocket
change for them.

Kurt
-- 
Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else -- unless it
is an enemy.
		-- Albert Einstein

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2191 bytes --]

On Sunday, 29 February 2004 at 14:48:30 +0000, Paul Ward wrote:
> Wes ðu hal Wesley,
>
> On Sunday, February 29, 2004, 7:34:03 AM, ure freond feorran awrat:
>
> WP> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about
> WP> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU
> WP> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name,
> WP> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of
> WP> the Windows kernel and Win32 API.
>
> WP> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of
> WP> the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?  If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and
> WP> Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people,
> WP> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt?
>
> Found in "ls":
> Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California.  All
>  rights reserved.  Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Softway Systems Inc.
>
> $OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strcpy.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:14 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strncpy.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:22 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strncmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:21 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strlcpy.c,v 1.4 1999/05/01 18:56:41 millert Exp $
> $OpenBSD: fts.c,v 1.15 1998/03/19 00:30:01 millert Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strcmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:12 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: memset.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:07 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: strcat.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:10 tholo Exp $
> $OpenBSD: memchr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:04 tholo Exp $
>
> There are a few OpenBSD CVS tags in libc.a as well.

Hmm.  In that case, Microsoft *is* abusing the OpenBSD license by not
stating clearly that the code is derived in part from OpenBSD.

Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040301/7a359a68/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Jon Snader]

On Sun, Feb 29, 2004 at 06:24:30PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> 
> The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from
> OpenBSD.  This sounds very unlikely to me.  If it were the case, why
> would they pay anything to SCO?
> 

I have no idea whether Microsoft based SFU on OpenBSD or not, but
the conventional wisdom on Groklaw, the SCOX Yahoo Finance Board,
and similar domains that are following the SCO issue is that Microsoft's
purchase of the license was a backdoor way of financing an attack on
Linux.  I don't whether that's true either, but it does provide an
answer to your question.

jcs

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Paul Ward]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2124 bytes --]

Wes ðu hal Wesley,

On Sunday, February 29, 2004, 7:34:03 AM, ure freond feorran awrat: 

WP> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about
WP> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU
WP> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name,
WP> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of
WP> the Windows kernel and Win32 API.

WP> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of
WP> the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?  If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and
WP> Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people,
WP> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt?

Found in "ls":
Copyright (c) 1991, 1993, 1994 The Regents of the University of California.  All
 rights reserved.  Copyright (c) 1996, 1998 Softway Systems Inc.

$OpenBSD: strlen.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:19 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strcpy.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:14 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strncpy.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:22 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strncmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:21 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strlcpy.c,v 1.4 1999/05/01 18:56:41 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: fts.c,v 1.15 1998/03/19 00:30:01 millert Exp $
$OpenBSD: strcmp.c,v 1.3 1996/08/19 08:34:12 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: memset.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:07 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: strcat.c,v 1.4 1996/08/19 08:34:10 tholo Exp $
$OpenBSD: memchr.c,v 1.2 1996/08/19 08:34:04 tholo Exp $

There are a few OpenBSD CVS tags in libc.a as well.

However, there are no BSD-style copyright notices in any of the header
files, only this:

$ pwd ; grep -i OpenBSD *
/usr/include
string.h:/* strncat(), strncpy() replacements from OpenBSD/FreeBsd */

This leads me to suspect that BSD isn't the base for libc or the
include files.

Maybe BSD is the base for /bin, /usr/bin etc.

As SFU doesn't have a kernel, this is probably either based on Xenix,
or some other companies attempt at a UNIX emulation layer (note the
copyrights to Softway Systems Inc.)


-- 
Best regards,
 Paul                            mailto:asmodai at ao.mine.nu

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Greg 'groggy' Lehey]

On Sunday, 29 February 2004 at 20:34:03 +1300, Wesley Parish wrote:
> I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about
> the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU
> (Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name,
> is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of
> the Windows kernel and Win32 API.
>
> The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in
> breach of the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?

That settlement was superseded by Caldera's release of Ancient UNIX
two years ago.  See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ and
http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf.

> If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and Microsoft have bought a license to run
> it from the SCO Group of all people,

If it's OpenBSD, SCO can't give anybody a license to use it.

> isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt?

Why?  As long as they use it within the terms of the license, I can't
see that anybody can object.  As you can see from
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html, about the only thing Microsoft
could do wrong there would be not to recognize openly the fact that
they got it from OpenBSD.

> This isn't definite, of course - some details I'm not sure of.

The most important detail is whether it was, in fact, derived from
OpenBSD.  This sounds very unlikely to me.  If it were the case, why
would they pay anything to SCO?

> But I think if this is so, we have some very interesting few years
> to look forward to.

Even then, there's little that people can complain about.

Greg
--
Note: I discard all HTML mail unseen.
Finger grog at lemis.com for PGP public key.
See complete headers for address and phone numbers.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20040229/4696caa0/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] Microsoft, SCO, and a certain License

[Wesley Parish]

I know the SCO topic's been done to death, and all, but I was thinking about 
the Microsoft purchase of a Unix license (apparently) for their MS SFU 
(Windows Services For Unix) which contrary to the plain meaning of the name, 
is essentially a Unix (apparently OpenBSD, according to rumour) box on top of 
the Windows kernel and Win32 API.

The question is, wouldn't that put Microsoft and the SCO Group in breach of 
the settlement between AT&T and Berkeley?  If Win SFU _is_ OpenBSD, and 
Microsoft have bought a license to run it from the SCO Group of all people, 
isn't that in effect picking a fight with Theo de Raadt?

This isn't definite, of course - some details I'm not sure of.  But I think if 
this is so, we have some very interesting few years to look forward to.
-- 
Wesley Parish
* * *
Clinersterton beademung - in all of love.  RIP James Blish
* * *
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."