[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Doug McIlroy]

> Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
> rebranded with the GPL.

A small amount of code was likewise adopted from AT&T.

Doug

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Nick Downing]

Is this really true, can you give specific examples? AFAIK the GPL cannot
be applied retrospectively except by the BSD- or commercial licensor,
perhaps you could GPL your changes but I am not quite sure how this would
work unless your release was in the form of a patch.
cheers, Nick

On Mar 19, 2017 12:07 AM, "Doug McIlroy" <doug at cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:

> > Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
> > rebranded with the GPL.
>
> A small amount of code was likewise adopted from AT&T.
>
> Doug
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170319/dd46c3ae/attachment.html>

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Warner Losh]

You're right. The GPL can't be applied in this way. However, there
were a few attempts (accidental it was claimed) to do this back in the
day, mostly by cutting and pasting bits out of NET2 for this or that
GPL thing. I don't recall the specifics, since it was fixed like
25-odd years ago. Accidental, as claimed, or sneaky, the incidents
(and talk of the incident) left a bad taste in people's mouths. A
couple of times the code in question passed from one person to the
next until the knowledge of the original copying was lost until
discovered by someone who was familiar with the original sources and
did a comparison. The reactions and the personalities didn't help to
smooth over the ruffled feathers either.

To be fair, it was a different time. The knowledge of what was and
wasn't permissible simply isn't at all what it is today. For many
people, it tended to fall into "OK to copy" and "NOT OK to copy". The
nuances of license compliance did not have the benefits of the last
two and a half decades of public education. While some people knew and
respected, it wasn't as universal as it is today. So it was natural
that people would just copy and not attribute. It didn't take too many
incidents of that happening for the word to spread it wasn't cool and
that just because you could copy an entire file w/o a problem doesn't
mean you could cut a dozen routines out of it and paste it into your
own work. That's why any projects that started out as a copy from BSD
(or worse AT&T) were thoroughly reworked to expunge that taint and you
don't hear about it today. It stopped being more than an incidental
problem in the mid 90's. And it wasn't just BSD->GPL either, again to
be fair, the same ignorance allowed code to flow the other way a time
or two...

Warner

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 7:27 AM, Nick Downing <downing.nick at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this really true, can you give specific examples? AFAIK the GPL cannot be
> applied retrospectively except by the BSD- or commercial licensor, perhaps
> you could GPL your changes but I am not quite sure how this would work
> unless your release was in the form of a patch.
> cheers, Nick
>
> On Mar 19, 2017 12:07 AM, "Doug McIlroy" <doug at cs.dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
>> > rebranded with the GPL.
>>
>> A small amount of code was likewise adopted from AT&T.
>>
>> Doug

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Doug McIlroy]

Nick asked for an exmple of AT&T code in Gnu.
Warner explained a spectrum of ways and degrees of innocence
by which that might happen.

The example I have in mind is "calendar" from v7, whose very
idiosyncratic implementation appeared in Gnu with only
cosmetic changes. It has been modified since by discarding
archaic efficiency hacks, but still uses the same quirky
basic method.

Conceivably Gnu's implementation was done only after v7
code was made public. But in any event, it has been
distributed without attribution.

Doug

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Random832]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017, at 12:25, Doug McIlroy wrote:
> Nick asked for an exmple of AT&T code in Gnu.
> Warner explained a spectrum of ways and degrees of innocence
> by which that might happen.
> 
> The example I have in mind is "calendar" from v7, whose very
> idiosyncratic implementation appeared in Gnu with only
> cosmetic changes. It has been modified since by discarding
> archaic efficiency hacks, but still uses the same quirky
> basic method.

The "calendar" available my Linux machine is from the "bsdmainutils"
package (which has never been put under the GPL, incidentally) which is
stuff copied with attribution from FreeBSD/NetBSD/OpenBSD, and
calendar.c has a UCB copyright/license and OpenBSD RCS ID at the top of
the file. (In the TUHS archive, this implementation first appears in
4.3BSD-Reno, with earlier versions having code clearly derived from V7).

The earliest version (from Debian 1.1) that I can find has a UCB
copyright dated 1993 and SCCS ID 8.3 3/25/94, not much removed from
4.4BSD in the archive (which has SCCS ID 8.1 6/6/93) - my guess is that
the actual source is 4.4BSD-Lite, which is mentioned in the bsdmainutils
README.

In the converted-to-git CSRG archive, the implementation first appears
in 1989 by "bostic" (Keith Bostic, presumably)
https://github.com/weiss/original-bsd/commit/46857f6fe723eff85f22986beb78063f05b60f78
with the change note "redone from scratch as a C program to fix cpp
security problem" - this is the first version to have a UCB copyright
notice. [Using cpp seems to have itself been a BSD innovation circa
4.1cBSD]

V7 calendar consists of a C program that outputs a set of regexes, and a
shell script that runs egrep. Unless by "same quirky basic method" you
mean the fact that it reads events from a text file at all, I'm not sure
what you're referring to... but that's functionality rather than
implementation.

There's a lot of code in a handful of not-part-of-GNU-proper core
utility packages used in Linux distributions - bsdmainutils, bsdgames,
bsdutils, and util-linux [only the last of which has the GPL] - which
come from some BSD or another and mostly have intact UCB copyright
statements and licenses at the top. If any of these are improperly
attributed, it's likely that UCB is to blame.

> Conceivably Gnu's implementation was done only after v7
> code was made public. But in any event, it has been
> distributed without attribution.
> 
> Doug

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Warner Losh]

On Sat, Mar 18, 2017 at 11:45 AM, Random832 <random832 at fastmail.com> wrote:
> There's a lot of code in a handful of not-part-of-GNU-proper core
> utility packages used in Linux distributions - bsdmainutils, bsdgames,
> bsdutils, and util-linux [only the last of which has the GPL] - which
> come from some BSD or another and mostly have intact UCB copyright
> statements and licenses at the top. If any of these are improperly
> attributed, it's likely that UCB is to blame.

Anything in 4.4-lite was specifically blessed by USL as non-infringing
as part of the settlement of that suit...

But the bsd* packages aren't what's being talked about here. Those
generally came about later as these BSD programs ported to Linux and
resistance to non-gpl'd code in distributions waned.

Warner

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Doug McIlroy]

> Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
> rebranded with the GPL.

I have seen Gnu code likewise adopted from AT&T.

Doug

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Clem Cole]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1328 bytes --]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:

> But the people who have spent 9-figure sums on all this
> marginally-functional tin that the Unix vendors foisted on them don't
> look at it that way: they just want something which is not Unix, and
> which runs on cheap tin.
>
​Fair enough -- but I think that this is really another way of describing
Prof. Christiansen's disruption theory​.   The "lessor" technology wins
over "better" technology because it's good enough.

I'm curious for the Banks, in your experience - which were the UNIX vendors
that were pushing 9-figure UNIX boxes.  I'll guess, IBM was one of them.
Maybe NCR.     What HP, Sun, DEC in that bundle?



>  Linux is not Unix, and runs on cheap tin.
>
I
​believe that
 the point you are making is that "white box" PC's running a UNIX-like
system - aka Linux could comes pretty close to doing what the highly touted
AIX, NCR et al were doing and were "good enough" to get the job done.

​And that's not a statement about UNIX as much as a statement about, the
WINTEL ecosystem, that Linux sat on top of and did an extremely impressive
job of utilizing.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20170314/fe10d73b/attachment-0001.html>

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Larry McVoy]

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:43:51AM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 7:35 AM, Tim Bradshaw <tfb at tfeb.org> wrote:
> >  Linux is not Unix, and runs on cheap tin.
> >
> I ???believe that
>  the point you are making is that "white box" PC's running a UNIX-like
> system - aka Linux could comes pretty close to doing what the highly touted
> AIX, NCR et al were doing and were "good enough" to get the job done.

As someone who dedicated a bunch of his life to Unix, it pains me to say
it but Linux is better than a lot of the Unix systems from back in the
day.  I loved SunOS but I wouldn't trade today's Linux for SunOS and I
don't think there are very many people who would disagree.

It got better than "good enough".

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Arthur Krewat]

But how far along are we on the Linux timeline, and how far along was 
Sun on the SunOS timeline before they stopped developing it?

It's been 23 or so years since my first exposure to Linux.

SunOS started at 1.0 in 1983, and last release was just before 1995. 12 
years in total. From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SunOS

Now, of course, I understand SunOS is based on BSD so there is a lot 
more work invested in SunOS before Sun even started on it which adds 
another 10 years (maybe less) to the SunOS development timeline. But in 
reality, how much of Linux was based on previous works?

Just a thought experiment, nothing more.


On 3/14/2017 11:38 AM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> As someone who dedicated a bunch of his life to Unix, it pains me to say
> it but Linux is better than a lot of the Unix systems from back in the
> day.  I loved SunOS but I wouldn't trade today's Linux for SunOS and I
> don't think there are very many people who would disagree.
>
> It got better than "good enough".
>

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Michael Kjörling]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 478 bytes --]

On 14 Mar 2017 11:51 -0400, from krewat at kilonet.net (Arthur Krewat):
> in reality, how much of Linux was based on previous works?

Linux the kernel, or Linux the usable operating system (which would
include at least the essential userspace parts)?

-- 
Michael Kjörling • https://michael.kjorling.se • michael at kjorling.se
                 “People who think they know everything really annoy
                 those of us who know we don’t.” (Bjarne Stroustrup)

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Arthur Krewat]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 544 bytes --]

Everything. I'm trying to grok how long Linux as a whole was in active 
development. That includes all the GNU utilities, GCC, everything.

Just like a "regular" corporate development environment would have 
devoted to the cause :)



On 3/14/2017 11:57 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
> On 14 Mar 2017 11:51 -0400, from krewat at kilonet.net (Arthur Krewat):
>> in reality, how much of Linux was based on previous works?
> Linux the kernel, or Linux the usable operating system (which would
> include at least the essential userspace parts)?
>

[TUHS] System Economics (was is Linux "officially branded UNIX")

[Warner Losh]

[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2263 bytes --]

Let's not forget X11 which has a long history as well starting in
1984. The 11th version of the protocol (X11) dates from 1987. All the
X11 versions are online still due to the X consortium. However, X10
and earlier can be hard to find. https://www.x.org/releases/ has X10R3
and X10R4, but nothing earlier. That's also a huge part of Linux since
it represents its windowing system. I used X10 on a sun 3/50 back in
the day before they upgraded it to X11. It was slower and buggier than
SunTools, but more cutting edge. suntools is dead and X11 is still
alive. suntools went directly to the frame buffer, while X always did
the protocol thing (though with many attempts over the years to make
the protocol layer optional, maybe wayland will finally succeed)...

Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
rebranded with the GPL. Most of that original code is now gone, but in
the early days it was the source of much friction between the BSD and
GPL communities, even if a lot (all) of the code was eventually
replaced... It wasn't so much the use of the code that bothered
people, but the filing off of the original attributions...  All that's
water under the bridge, but the fact that this happened, as well as
many other incidents in the early days, goes a long way to explain
many of the hard feelings and out-sized reactions you used to see back
in the day.... This is also an important motivating factor for the
foundation that Linux was built on: This friction, the causes of which
were partially real or and partially imagined, drive much innovation
in both camps...

Warner

On Tue, Mar 14, 2017 at 10:20 AM, Arthur Krewat <krewat at kilonet.net> wrote:
> Everything. I'm trying to grok how long Linux as a whole was in active
> development. That includes all the GNU utilities, GCC, everything.
>
> Just like a "regular" corporate development environment would have devoted
> to the cause :)
>
>
>
>
> On 3/14/2017 11:57 AM, Michael Kjörling wrote:
>>
>> On 14 Mar 2017 11:51 -0400, from krewat at kilonet.net (Arthur Krewat):
>>>
>>> in reality, how much of Linux was based on previous works?
>>
>> Linux the kernel, or Linux the usable operating system (which would
>> include at least the essential userspace parts)?
>>
>

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Tony Finch]

Warner Losh <imp at bsdimp.com> wrote:

> Many of the gnu tools started life as BSD code that was hacked on and
> rebranded with the GPL. [context brutally snipped]

This brings up questions about how GNU and BSD operated around 1990ish.
I'm aware of Bostic's campaign to replace the AT&T code in BSD, which led
to the almost-completely-free Net/2. What I wonder is how much of this was
duplicating work also done under the GNU umbrella? How much of it was
authors donating their rewritten utilities to both projects? What was the
state of the GNU project when Bostic started his campaign?

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot at dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/  -  I xn--zr8h punycode
Dover, Wight, Portland, Plymouth: Southwest 5 to 7, occasionally gale 8 except
in Plymouth. Moderate or rough. Fair then occasional rain. Good, occasionally
poor.

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Jeremy C. Reed]

> This brings up questions about how GNU and BSD operated around 1990ish.
> I'm aware of Bostic's campaign to replace the AT&T code in BSD, which led
> to the almost-completely-free Net/2. What I wonder is how much of this was
> duplicating work also done under the GNU umbrella? How much of it was
> authors donating their rewritten utilities to both projects? What was the
> state of the GNU project when Bostic started his campaign?

Have a look at the following:

GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 6, January, 1989
Contents of Beta Test Tape
https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull6.html#SEC17

GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 7, June, 1989
https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull7.html
"A collection of utilities for file manipulation, including ls, mv, cp, 
cat, rm, du, head, tail and cmp will be released soon."
...
"The GNU project is working to provide reimplementations of System V 
features that Berkeley Unix lacks, such as improved shells and make 
commands."

GNU's Bulletin, vol. 1 no. 9, June 1990
https://www.gnu.org/bulletins/bull9.html#SEC10
GNU Project Status Report
"We have added a collection of utilities for file manipulation to the 
Pre-Release tape. The collection includes ls, mv, cp, cat, rm, du, head, 
tail, cmp, chmod, mkdir, and ln."

So around same time GNU project didn't publish some the most common 
tools, but soon did. I didn't check, but I am pretty sure these are all 
different code than the rewritten BSD code. Duplicated work.

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[arnold]

"Jeremy C. Reed" <reed at reedmedia.net> wrote:

> So around same time GNU project didn't publish some the most common 
> tools, but soon did. I didn't check, but I am pretty sure these are all 
> different code than the rewritten BSD code. Duplicated work.

ISTR that the smaller utils were duplicated. 4.4BSD shipped gawk instead
of original Unix awk, and used GCC (and I guess the binutils) as the
compiler suite.  So some GNU stuff was used.

Arnold

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Wesley Parish]

If you read the early GNUs Bulletins you find a quite positive attitude towards the BSD community.

Wesley Parish

Quoting arnold at skeeve.com:

> "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed at reedmedia.net> wrote:
> 
> > So around same time GNU project didn't publish some the most common 
> > tools, but soon did. I didn't check, but I am pretty sure these are
> all 
> > different code than the rewritten BSD code. Duplicated work.
> 
> ISTR that the smaller utils were duplicated. 4.4BSD shipped gawk
> instead
> of original Unix awk, and used GCC (and I guess the binutils) as the
> compiler suite. So some GNU stuff was used.
> 
> Arnold
>  



"I have supposed that he who buys a Method means to learn it." - Ferdinand Sor,
Method for Guitar

"A verbal contract isn't worth the paper it's written on." -- Samuel Goldwyn

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Warner Losh]

On Sun, Mar 19, 2017 at 1:18 AM,  <arnold at skeeve.com> wrote:
> "Jeremy C. Reed" <reed at reedmedia.net> wrote:
>
>> So around same time GNU project didn't publish some the most common
>> tools, but soon did. I didn't check, but I am pretty sure these are all
>> different code than the rewritten BSD code. Duplicated work.
>
> ISTR that the smaller utils were duplicated. 4.4BSD shipped gawk instead
> of original Unix awk, and used GCC (and I guess the binutils) as the
> compiler suite.  So some GNU stuff was used.

All the GNU and X11 stuff was under contrib in 4.4-lite. This included
gawk, gcc, binutils, perl, emacs, flex, gdb, groff, kermit, libg++,
mh, nvi, rcs, gnu sort and a few other sundries. But the research awk
was also included. The build system by default included gawk though...

Warner

[TUHS] GNU vs BSD before the lawsuit and before Linux

[Ron Natalie]

I could never convince the principals to call the FreeBSD project "Radio
Free Berkeley."   As for duplication of effort, I'm not sure anybody cared.
Certainly RMS didn't give a rats ass.
I suspect some of the stuff came from sources outside of both projects, like
stuff we did at BRL (although, those using that tape need to be careful,
most of that stuff came right out of the system V sources, hacked over to
work on BSD).