[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Andrew Warkentin]

lm at bitmover.com wrote:

>Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape?  I'm looking for the 
>lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc.  I was pretty
>focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code
>that could port easily.  These days nobody cares about that stuff but
>I'd like a copy of those lint libs.  If you don't get why think about
>how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.
>
>Thanks,
>
>--lm
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
>https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
>  
>
Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3, and 3x can be found 
at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[asbesto]

Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:48:29AM -0600, Andrew Warkentin wrote:

> >that could port easily.  These days nobody cares about that stuff but
> >I'd like a copy of those lint libs.  If you don't get why think about
> >how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.

> Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3, and 3x can be found 
> at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/

AH!

and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ?


-- 
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto -  http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE!  - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 20 Sep 2007, at 18:22, asbesto wrote:

>
> and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ?
>

 From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a  
license to run SunOS.  This possibly applies only to smaller machines  
- certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra  
licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.   
Obviously that's not true any more.

Of course you should check the license.

--tim

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[John Cowan]

Tim Bradshaw scripsit:

>  From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a  
> license to run SunOS.  This possibly applies only to smaller machines  
> - certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra  
> licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.   
> Obviously that's not true any more.

The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
as an open source license).

> Of course you should check the license.

There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come
with a machine-readable license.

-- 
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy?      John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles              http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
             thou hast given away:      cowan at ccil.org
      That thou wast born with.

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[asbesto]

Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:58:06AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> >  From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a  
> > license to run SunOS.  This possibly applies only to smaller machines  
> > - certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra  
> > licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.   
> > Obviously that's not true any more.
> 
> The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> as an open source license).

and ... what for older versions of SLOWlaris ? :)

p.s.
why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(


-- 
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto -  http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE!  - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[John Cowan]

asbesto scripsit:

> why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
> always reply to the sender, not to the list :(

http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders.
        --Hal Abelson

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Tim Bradshaw]

On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:

>
> The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> as an open source license).

I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
still have it?)

>
>> Of course you should check the license.
>
> There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come
> with a machine-readable license.

I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or rather: "don't take assume  
this is correct, but ask Sun if you care".  I was just trying to  
absolve myself of responsibility, basically.

--tim

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[John Cowan]

Tim Bradshaw scripsit:

> I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
> still have it?)

There are places where it can be found, he said darkly.

> I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or rather: "don't take assume  
> this is correct, but ask Sun if you care".  I was just trying to  
> absolve myself of responsibility, basically.

That was tried, but nobody at Sun would take responsibility, until finally
someone at Sun Germany said "Okay to use it for non-commercial use".

-- 
John Cowan  http://ccil.org/~cowan  cowan at ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms".   --Abbie

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org>
            Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> writes:
: On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
: 
: >
: > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > as an open source license).
: 
: I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
: still have it?)

SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
code from other places.  BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
there is still AT&T code in it.  As such, open sourcing it would be
difficult at best.

Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
be obtained internally if necessary...  I never pressed them for
details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).

Warner

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[asbesto]

Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:

> > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
> > always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
> http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto

AH. 

So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
don't use Reply-To :D

OK :)

-- 
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto -  http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE!  - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Seth Morabito]

On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote:
> p.s.
> why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
> always reply to the sender, not to the list :(

Be careful!  Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death  
and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to!

[ob-smiley:  ;)  ]

-Seth

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20070921172202.GB12148 at freaknet.org>
            asbesto <asbesto at freaknet.org> writes:
: Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
: 
: > > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
: > > always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
: > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto
: 
: AH. 
: 
: So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
: don't use Reply-To :D
: 
: OK :)

All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field.  It is actually quite
common.

Warner

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Brantley Coile]

BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
or System V license.  The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
System III and System V.

To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
which covers 32V and earlier.  Berkeley never had a liscense
for anything later than 32V.

> In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org>
>             Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> writes:
> : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
> : 
> : >
> : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> : > as an open source license).
> : 
> : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
> : still have it?)
> 
> SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
> code from other places.  BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
> there is still AT&T code in it.  As such, open sourcing it would be
> difficult at best.
> 
> Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
> be obtained internally if necessary...  I never pressed them for
> details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
> 
> Warner
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Brantley Coile]

A worthy warning.  For those of us with more gray hair,
the Unix/VMS battles of 1983 were very bloody.

 
> On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote:
>> p.s.
>> why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
>> always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
> 
> Be careful!  Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death  
> and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to!
> 
> [ob-smiley:  ;)  ]
> 
> -Seth
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com>
            Brantley Coile <brantley at coraid.com> writes:
: BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
: or System V license.  The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
: Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
: System III and System V.
: 
: To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
: which covers 32V and earlier.  Berkeley never had a liscense
: for anything later than 32V.

True.  When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to
distribute.  With that license came the System V streams stuff, which
Sun included in SunOS 4.  There was much other technology from other
third parties in SunOS.  Just doing an audit of what came from where
would be expensive and time consuming...

It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix
license or not given the code's derivation history.  I don't know what
their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate.  Again, another topic
for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.

Warner


: > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org>
: >             Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> writes:
: > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
: > : 
: > : >
: > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > : > as an open source license).
: > : 
: > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
: > : still have it?)
: > 
: > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
: > code from other places.  BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
: > there is still AT&T code in it.  As such, open sourcing it would be
: > difficult at best.
: > 
: > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
: > be obtained internally if necessary...  I never pressed them for
: > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
: > 
: > Warner
: > _______________________________________________
: > TUHS mailing list
: > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
: > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
: 
: _______________________________________________
: TUHS mailing list
: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
: https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
: 
: 

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[asbesto]

Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:29:42AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:

> : > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto
> : So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
> : don't use Reply-To :D
> : OK :)
> 
> All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field.  It is actually quite
> common.

ahahahah! :) I will *not* start a flame war on this list, please! 
:)


-- 
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto -  http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE!  - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Bill Pechter]

On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
>
> In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com>
>             Brantley Coile <brantley at coraid.com> writes:
> : BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
> : or System V license.  The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
> : Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
> : System III and System V.
> :
> : To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
> : which covers 32V and earlier.  Berkeley never had a liscense
> : for anything later than 32V.
>
> True.  When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to
> distribute.  With that license came the System V streams stuff, which
> Sun included in SunOS 4.  There was much other technology from other
> third parties in SunOS.  Just doing an audit of what came from where
> would be expensive and time consuming...
>
> It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix
> license or not given the code's derivation history.  I don't know what
> their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate.  Again, another topic
> for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.
>
> Warner
>
>
> : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org>
> : >             Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> writes:
> : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >
> : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> : > : > as an open source license).
> : > :
> : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
> : > : still have it?)
> : >
> : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
> : > code from other places.  BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
> : > there is still AT&T code in it.  As such, open sourcing it would be
> : > difficult at best.
> : >
> : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
> : > be obtained internally if necessary...  I never pressed them for
> : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
> : >
> : > Warner
> : > _______________________________________________
> : > TUHS mailing list
> : > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> : > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> :
> : _______________________________________________
> : TUHS mailing list
> : TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> : https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
> :
> :
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>


Ah well,  when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps the folks from Utah
will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun)
-- 
--
  d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN.  Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20070921/4a5aac12/attachment.html>

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Wesley Parish]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3437 bytes --]

On Saturday 22 September 2007 08:58, Bill Pechter wrote:
> On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:
> > In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693 at coraid.com>
> >
<snip>
> > It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix
> > license or not given the code's derivation history.  I don't know what
> > their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate.  Again, another topic
> > for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.
> >
> > Warner
> >
> > : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198 at tfeb.org>
> > : >
> > : >             Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> writes:
> > : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
> > : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> > : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> > : > : > as an open source license).
> > : > :
> > : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if
> > : > : Sun still have it?)
> > : >
> > : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
> > : > code from other places.  BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
> > : > there is still AT&T code in it.  As such, open sourcing it would be
> > : > difficult at best.
> > : >
> > : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
> > : > be obtained internally if necessary...  I never pressed them for
> > : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
> > : >
> > : > Warner
<snip>
> Ah well,  when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps the folks from Utah
> will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun)

Well, FWIW, I asked them last year in relation to OSF/1 and the requirement 
for an AT&T license, and I got a reply from Bill Dunford.  I think the best 
thing to do would be to approach (semi-officially) the relevant companies and 
ask (politely ;).

Wesley Parish

This is my email and the reply:
Hi Wesley,

I have no immediate answer to this, but I've directed your question to
people who will be able to respond. If for some reason you don't find
out what you're looking for, please let me know.

Bill  
 
>>> Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> 07/23/06 11:01 PM >>> 
Hi.

I understand that Novell's background actions helped The Unix Heritage
Society
preserve and distribute the Ancient Unix and *BSD code, by permitting
the Santa
Cruz Operation to waive the System V license requirement in the
earlier
pre- 4.4BSD- Lite BSD distributions.

I'm interested in getting hold of the OSF/1 June 1994 source code
release for
The Unix Heritage Society, being a member of that amorphous body.  I
have been
informed by the Open Group that it requires the OSF/1 licensee to have
a System
V license.

Would it be possible for Novell at some stage, maybe when this farce
with The
SCO Group has run its course, to direct the Open Group to waive the
System V
license requirement for OSF/1?

Thanks

Wesley Parish

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Gaul is quartered into three halves.  Things which are 
impossible are equal to each other.  Guerrilla 
warfare means up to their monkey tricks. 
Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom 
of the foolish.
-----
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.

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[John Cowan]

Tim Bradshaw scripsit:

> I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
> still have it?)

It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.

-- 
We call nothing profound                        cowan at ccil.org
that is not wittily expressed.                  John Cowan
        --Northrop Frye (improved)

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Jose R. Valverde]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2019 bytes --]

On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
> 
> > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
> > still have it?)
> 
> It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
> Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.
> 
The funny thing, if I did read correctly the filings and agreements from
Groklaw is that a legal third party could probably release this code 
*legally* if it is *acually* available.

I'm talking about something that popped up in the SCO vs IBM case: as I
remember, the agreement stated that IBM was required to held confidential 
all information except in the case it had been made widely available by
some third party.

>The exception is set forth in Section 7.06(a) of the standard software agreement:
>
>    If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any 
>time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not 
>attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this 
>section shall not apply to such information after such time.  

Thus it seems possible that UNIX source code licensees would -in the case the
code had been made available *by others* have no longer obligation to keep it
confidential.

But, and this is IMPORTANT, IANAL, so don't take my word for it. My guess is 
that even if so, most licensses will be reluctant to take any action without 
legal counsel, which is costly and unless they had a compelling reason to, 
they would therefore rather not ask, not act and not risk.

				j

-- 
	These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!

			    José R. Valverde

	De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20070925/faaa29f3/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[M. Warner Losh]

In message: <20070925160647.65053bd4 at veda.cnb.uam.es>
            "Jose R. Valverde" <jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es> writes:
: On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400
: John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
: > Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
: > 
: > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
: > > still have it?)
: > 
: > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
: > Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.


Chances are in this case copying just the lint libraries is completely
legal.  Why do I say this?

First, the lint libraries are unlikely to qualify for copyright
protection in the first place.  Their contents are dictated almost
entirely by external factors.  This is the same reason that you can't
effectively copyright header files or interfaces.  Standard copyright
infringement analysis requires removal of all portions that are
dictated by external factors.

Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection because
there's not enough creative content in these files.  While they may be
pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to
qualify for copyright protection.  The phone book doesn't qualify,
even if it is correct, for example.  This would be especially true
after all those parts of the code which were dictated by external
factors.

Even if after these tests you discover that there could be copyright
protection on this work, copying just these files likely would be fair
use.  First, these files are useless without a lint program.  Second,
these files are a tiny portion of the entire SunOS system.  Third,
they aren't being put to commercial use (at least not directly).
Forth, they would be used for education purposes.  These tests are the
ones that educators are taught to apply when photocopying articles for
use in the classroom.

So I'm saying it would likely be completely legal for Larry to show
these files to his colleges as an example of extreme attention to
detail, and legal for him to copy them to do so.  For other purposes,
it is less clear.  I've also grossly simplified things, and I'm not a
lawyer, so if you are worried, competent legal advise should be
obtained.

Warner

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[John Cowan]

M. Warner Losh scripsit:

> Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection because
> there's not enough creative content in these files.  While they may be
> pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to
> qualify for copyright protection.  The phone book doesn't qualify,
> even if it is correct, for example.  

True in the U.S., which uses the "originality" standard; false in the
U.K., which uses the "sweat of the brow" standard.

IANAL; TINLA.

-- 
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim  John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust?   cowan at ccil.org
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
        --George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Jose R. Valverde]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2029 bytes --]


On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400
John Cowan <cowan at ccil.org> wrote:
> Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
>   
> > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun  
> > still have it?)  
> 
> It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
> Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.
>   
The funny thing, if I did read correctly the filings and agreements from
Groklaw is that a legal third party could probably release this code 
*legally* if it is *acually* available.

I'm talking about something that popped up in the SCO vs IBM case: as I
remember, the agreement stated that IBM was required to held confidential 
all information except in the case it had been made widely available by
some third party.

>The exception is set forth in Section 7.06(a) of the standard software agreement:
>
>    If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any 
>time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not 
>attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this 
>section shall not apply to such information after such time.    

Thus it seems possible that UNIX source code licensees would -in the case the
code had been made available *by others* have no longer obligation to keep it
confidential.

But, and this is IMPORTANT, IANAL, so don't take my word for it. My guess is 
that even if so, most licensses will be reluctant to take any action without 
legal counsel, which is costly and unless they had a compelling reason to, 
they would therefore rather not ask, not act and not risk.

				j


-- 
	These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!

			    José R. Valverde

	De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20070925/b57f17bc/attachment.sig>

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[asbesto]

Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 07:20:17PM -0700, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape?  I'm looking for the 
> lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc.  I was pretty
> focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code
> that could port easily.  These days nobody cares about that stuff but
> I'd like a copy of those lint libs.  If you don't get why think about
> how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.

maybe we can help us - let me search for this :)

but - what about licensing ? those OLD operating systems are already
covered by licenses :(

-- 
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto -  http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE!  - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]

[TUHS] SunOS 4.1.1?

[Larry McVoy]

Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape?  I'm looking for the 
lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc.  I was pretty
focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code
that could port easily.  These days nobody cares about that stuff but
I'd like a copy of those lint libs.  If you don't get why think about
how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.

Thanks,

--lm