The Unix Heritage Society mailing list
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
@ 2023-03-15 22:25 Noel Chiappa
  2023-03-15 22:39 ` segaloco via TUHS
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Noel Chiappa @ 2023-03-15 22:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

    > From: Larry McVoy

    > If there are no commercial users of that source base, you have a chance

When was the last VAX sold? Maybe the VAX version people would be willing to
let go of.

    Noel



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 22:25 [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780 Noel Chiappa
@ 2023-03-15 22:39 ` segaloco via TUHS
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-03-15 22:39 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: jnc; +Cc: tuhs

Whatever survives of the UnixWare IP holder is still making money, I think, at least on support.  Isn't that where the "upstream" SysV code base went to die after SVR4?

- Matt G.

------- Original Message -------
On Wednesday, March 15th, 2023 at 3:25 PM, jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu <jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> wrote:


> > From: Larry McVoy
> 
> 
> > If there are no commercial users of that source base, you have a chance
> 
> 
> When was the last VAX sold? Maybe the VAX version people would be willing to
> let go of.
> 
> Noel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-17  2:03                         ` G. Branden Robinson
@ 2023-03-17  3:17                           ` Dave Horsfall
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2023-03-17  3:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, G. Branden Robinson wrote:

> [replying only to list]

Short of replying to the sender alone, is there any other way to reply?  
I get annoyed by people blindly using "Reply to all" and are too lazy to 
edit the recipient list; I will see my own copy, after all...

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-17  1:05                       ` segaloco via TUHS
@ 2023-03-17  2:03                         ` G. Branden Robinson
  2023-03-17  3:17                           ` Dave Horsfall
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: G. Branden Robinson @ 2023-03-17  2:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6586 bytes --]

[replying only to list]

At 2023-03-17T01:05:56+0000, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> Aside from just legal matters there's also just the matters of ethics
> and responsibility.  Of course, corporations aren't bastions of these
> principles,

Indeed not.  For any publicly traded company, and not a few privately
held ones, the _only_ ethical principle is, as the cryptocurrency
aficionados say, "number go up!" (increase the share price).

> but playing within the lines in at least some fashion stands to put
> less strain on individual lines of contact and establishes good
> precedent on future-such goals.

This is speculative.  I think the lengthy and expensive SCO v. IBM case
established a (rebuttable) presumption that much of what we call Unix,
at least those parts that the Berkeley CSRG didn't replace or tidy up,
is an orphaned work.[1]  For purposes of copyright litigation, IBM had
(and has) all the money in the world, and SCOX(E) had nearly all the
money in the world thanks to underwriting (by Microsoft and others) who
saw the potential for extracting royalties from every Linux installation
in every data center in the world.

I would also point out that fair use _is_ "playing within the lines".

> If some group were to be found to be incredibly lax with legal
> ramifications out of a perception that they didn't matter, that group
> is much less likely to be able to work through the proper channels in
> the times it does matter.

Researching copyright title would appear to be a costly process, at
least for a work like Unix System V, which had many corporate
contributors, some of which are now defunct or whose status is unknown,
and whose legal successors-in-interest cannot be identified, let alone
for paperwork sufficient to clarify copyright ownership (for just one
aspect of what may have been a diversified business), located.

Think like a corporation: are you going to send off a team of senior
engineers and attorneys to research this stuff for jollies?  For however
long it takes?  What's the ROI?  If you're the director-level person
issuing this decree, you can expect to be challenged to justify yourself
to your Vice President at every quarterly meeting.

Who is going to say "yes" to that sort of project?

> That damage or not to perceptions in some ways could do more lethal
> damage to a historical effort than, say, legal red tape.

I'm sorry, but this view strikes me as cowardly.  Even granting the
existing copyright regime all the legitimacy in the world, I think the
evidence that the Unix System V copyrights have been responsibly
stewarded is meager.

Simply taking the System V sources and using them in commercial product,
without source disclosure, is, I think, the most _likely_ means of
agitating any potential copyright holders into assembling sufficient
documentation to substantiate a claim of copyright ownership to a
standard that wouldn't be laughed out of court.

But I will grant that that could be perceived as a rude and
uncooperative.  If one concealed their provenance, it would rightly be
considered unethical as well.

Consequently, putting the Unix System V sources up as the historical and
educational resource that the history of operating systems research and
development unquestionably establishes them to be, _is_ the gentle,
polite approach calibrated to elicit cooperation from friendly hands
inside firms that may be involved, given that is apparently too costly
for any one of these firms to slap up a web page saying, "yup, it's
ours, and here's the proof!", without exposing themselves to unfriendly
attention from the Federal Trade Commission for false dealing.

Getting a DMCA takedown notice would not, I am sure, be pleasant, but it
happens all the time and as far as I can tell it does not ruin lives or
even, of itself, cost people money.  That said, I wouldn't embark on the
project without competent legal assistance that is prepared to file a
counter-notice, to discourage the issue of a BS takedown notice.[2]  The
whole point is to build a documentary record we can have some confidence
in, for scholarly purposes among others.  But scholarly purposes don't
suffice to motivate anyone who has, or thinks they might have, the
rights to Unix System V, or they would have told us already.

If we want to find out who really has the rights to this stuff, we've
got to give them a reason to find out whether they do and announce
themselves.

As noted above, we've got to give them a reason to say "yes", even if it
comes with a "no": "yes, this is mine, and here is how I know, and no,
you can't do what you're doing".  And that means posing a question that
share price-sensitive executives are willing to find the answer to.

If you want my prediction, I don't think anyone will do anything.  The
answer to the question will not be uttered, but will resemble this.

"We believe this asset has no commercial value.  We don't know if we own
it or not, and finding out would cost money we're not willing to spend."

If I'm right, we'll be waiting a long time for that takedown notice.

Regards,
Branden

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orphan_work

[2] Again, I'm not a lawyer, but my half-educated guess is that either
    the original takedown notice itself, if sufficiently clear, or any
    response to a counter-notice, would have to sufficiently clearly
    allege ownership of Unix System V copyrights that if the allegations
    were false, they would constitute "slander of title", which is one
    of the torts upon which the SCO v. IBM case turned.  So it would
    still accomplish our mission: if someone steps forward falsely
    claiming copyright ownership of the code, they open themselves up to
    liability to those firm(s) that actually do.  And if the true
    title-holders take the BS title-holders to court over it, we get our
    question answered then, too.

    If the lawsuit is profitable, then it's not inconceivable that we
    will establish the exact sort of friendly relationship with the true
    title-holders that you are afraid of jeopardizing.  Because anyone
    willing to issue a DMCA takedown notice--to a zero-profit bunch of
    old geeks with a web page--falsely claiming ownership of Unix System
    V copyrights is, I suspect, already making these fraudulent claims
    in private communications to firms who are paying them license fees.
    Why?  Because why does any corporation do anything?  For the money.

    This is one way we could go from being bold to being bona fide.

    A bit of courage could bring benefits for all except fraudsters.

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16 23:48               ` Charles H. Sauer (he/him)
@ 2023-03-17  1:08                 ` Steve Nickolas
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Steve Nickolas @ 2023-03-17  1:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On Thu, 16 Mar 2023, Charles H. Sauer (he/him) wrote:

> To fill in the Dell details that Clem cites, this is what I see when I bring 
> up Dell SVR4:
>
>  X/Open XPG3 BASE
>
>  Copyright (c) 1989, 1998, 1991, 1992, 1993 DELL Computer Corp.
>  Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 AT&T
>  Copyright (c) 1990, 1991 UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
>  Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.
>  Copyright (c) 1991 Young Minds, Inc.
>  Copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 Sun Microsystems.
>  Copyright (c) 1987, 1988, 1989 Lachman Associates,  Inc. (LAI)
>  Copyright (c) 1989 Western Digital.
>  Copyright (c) 1990, Renaissance GRX, Inc.
>  Copyright (c) 1991,1992 Appian Technology Inc.
>  Copyright (c) 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Intel Corp.
>  All Rights Reserved

<snip>

> The late Jeremy Chatfield is probably the person who figured out what we 
> needed to say at startup in this regard. I have guesses about reasons for 
> most of those 11 copyright lines and might be able to be definitive if I 
> spent enough time with the source. There is at least one more line that I 
> would have thought would be needed, but given Jeremy's general thoroughness, 
> I assume he got this right.
>
> Charlie

I'm surprised, given I *know* the code's in there, that the Regents of the 
University of California aren't mentioned.

Then again...

-uso.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-17  0:33                     ` Rich Salz
@ 2023-03-17  1:05                       ` segaloco via TUHS
  2023-03-17  2:03                         ` G. Branden Robinson
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: segaloco via TUHS @ 2023-03-17  1:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Rich Salz; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1116 bytes --]

Aside from just legal matters there's also just the matters of ethics and responsibility. Of course, corporations aren't bastions of these principles, but playing within the lines in at least some fashion stands to put less strain on individual lines of contact and establishes good precedent on future-such goals. If some group were to be found to be incredibly lax with legal ramifications out of a perception that they didn't matter, that group is much less likely to be able to work through the proper channels in the times it does matter. That damage or not to perceptions in some ways could do more lethal damage to a historical effort than, say, legal red tape.

- Matt G.
------- Original Message -------
On Thursday, March 16th, 2023 at 5:33 PM, Rich Salz <rich.salz@gmail.com> wrote:

>> Call me naïve, but how would a foreign law be enforced in Australia?
>
> I didn't know the site and people in charge of it were in Australia. Ignorant just assuming it all revolves around us. But I suppose some global firm could still cause trouble, especially since Australia is a party to the Berne convention.
>
>>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1866 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16 21:14                   ` Dave Horsfall
@ 2023-03-17  0:33                     ` Rich Salz
  2023-03-17  1:05                       ` segaloco via TUHS
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Rich Salz @ 2023-03-17  0:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Horsfall; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 333 bytes --]

>
>
> Call me naïve, but how would a foreign law be enforced in Australia?
>

I didn't know the site and people in charge of it were in Australia.
Ignorant just assuming it all revolves around us. But I suppose some global
firm could still cause trouble, especially since Australia is a party to
the Berne convention.

>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 708 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16 23:18             ` Clem Cole
@ 2023-03-16 23:48               ` Charles H. Sauer (he/him)
  2023-03-17  1:08                 ` Steve Nickolas
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Charles H. Sauer (he/him) @ 2023-03-16 23:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On 3/16/2023 6:18 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:38 PM KenUnix <ken.unix.guy@gmail.com 
> <mailto:ken.unix.guy@gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
>     So, at this point what is the safest road to take?
> 
>     Stick with v7?
> 
> I'm not a lawyer - this is not legal advice. This is how I 
> personally analyze these Ancient UNIX license wording against the 
> history of how different UNIX releases we made publically available. 
> /*YMMV - get a legal opinion and form your own opinion and make a 
> personal choice.*/
> 
> The Ancient UNIX license -- the document Warren has on the site 
> (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html <https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html>) 
> says [please go read it yourself]:
> 
>     1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is
>     (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V
>     version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V andsuccessor
>     operating systems.
> 
> My take ...
> 
>   * Any UNIX package based on the Research Editions 1-7 and 32V is
>     allowed. This family includes the16-bit 1BSD, 2BSD, 2.9-11BSD and
>     32V based 3BSD, 4BSD, 4.1BSD, 4.2BSD, 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD.
>   * PWB1.0 and 2.0 are 16-bit - although PWB 2.0 was not officially
>     released outside of the Bell System (except possibly for the note
>     suggested about Wollongong advertising they had it).  But under the
>     16-bit rule - I interpret both PWB 1.0 and 2.0 as being covered.
>   * PWB 3.0 (/a.k.a./ System III) was released for both PDP-11 and Vaxen
>     and was thus generally available to the Unix (source) licensees. 
>       Under the 16-bit rule, I would _/personally interpret/_ that PWB
>     3.0 is covered since it is not explicitly called out (as System V is
>     called out).
>   * This also puts PWB 4.0 in an interesting place. Like PWB 2.0, it was
>     never released outside of the Bell System; although Bell folks had
>     16-bit versions, they were starting to be depreciated in favor of
>     Vaxen and WE32000/3B-based ISAs. Given the exclusion starts at
>     System V and _/there was a 16-bit version/_ for PWB 4.0 internally,
>     again, I personally /_suspect it's okay_/, but get your own legal
>     opinion, please.
>   * Clearly, anything_no matter the _ISA any release is based on System
>     V, SVR1, SVR2, SVR3, SVR4, and SVR5 has been excluded in that
>     license, which means unless the current IP owners of System V-based
>     UNIX make a new license, I personally interpret that as a no-no
>     according to this license.
> 
> 
> Some other random thoughts..
> 
>   * Some of the commercial UNIXs (as described by Charlie WRT to Dell),
>     have encumberments beyond AT&Ts - say IP from MIPs whose compiler
>     was often used and was not based on the AT&T IP and Transcript or
>     PostScript, which came from Adobe.   For instance, besides Dell,
>     DEC, HP, IBM's versions have these types of IP issues in
>     Ultrix/HPUX/AIX.  I /_suspect _/many if not most commercial UNIX
>     released would be in the same situation - particularly given Charlie
>     example of Dell who was making a 'Wintel' release.
>   * IBM, HP, and Sun all bought out their UNIX license from AT&T at some
>     point and owned the right to do whatever they wanted with it. And as
>     has been discussed here, a version of Solaris which had SVR4 code in
>     it was released by Sun and later taken back in by Oracle.   Some
>     questions for your lawyers would be:
> 
>      1. If Solaris was released, doesn't that make at least the bits
>         from that release available forever?      Clearly, some people
>         on this list have made that interpretation - I'm personally not
>         willing to take that risk.
>      2. Assume 1 seems to mean that the Solaris IP from that release is
>         free to be examined and used since it was partly based on SVR4,
>         does that make SVR4 available also? /i.e./ it does not matter
>         what the owners of the SVR4 IP think, Sun legally released it
>         with their license?     To me, this gets back to the USL vs.
>         BSDi/UCB case ok what was what, and the question is how to show
>         some portion of the code base was or want not released by Sun
>         and what parts had been.   Again, I personally will not take
>         that risk.

To fill in the Dell details that Clem cites, this is what I see when I 
bring up Dell SVR4:

   X/Open XPG3 BASE

   Copyright (c) 1989, 1998, 1991, 1992, 1993 DELL Computer Corp.
   Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 AT&T
   Copyright (c) 1990, 1991 UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
   Copyright (c) 1987, 1988 Microsoft Corp.
   Copyright (c) 1991 Young Minds, Inc.
   Copyright (c) 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 Sun Microsystems.
   Copyright (c) 1987, 1988, 1989 Lachman Associates,  Inc. (LAI)
   Copyright (c) 1989 Western Digital.
   Copyright (c) 1990, Renaissance GRX, Inc.
   Copyright (c) 1991,1992 Appian Technology Inc.
   Copyright (c) 1987, 1988, 1989, 1990 Intel Corp.
   All Rights Reserved

   wd0: addr 0x00000300 irq 18 mem 0x000CC000
   sas0: addr 0x000003F8 irq 4 type: standard

   The system is coming up.    Please wait.

   Welcome to Dell UNIX System V Release 4.0 (i386/i486 version)

   System name: 2021nov

   Console Login:

The late Jeremy Chatfield is probably the person who figured out what we 
needed to say at startup in this regard. I have guesses about reasons 
for most of those 11 copyright lines and might be able to be definitive 
if I spent enough time with the source. There is at least one more line 
that I would have thought would be needed, but given Jeremy's general 
thoroughness, I assume he got this right.

Charlie
-- 
voice: +1.512.784.7526       e-mail: sauer@technologists.com
fax: +1.512.346.5240         Web: https://technologists.com/sauer/
Facebook/Google/LinkedIn/Twitter: CharlesHSauer

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:38           ` KenUnix
@ 2023-03-16 23:18             ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-16 23:48               ` Charles H. Sauer (he/him)
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2023-03-16 23:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4074 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:38 PM KenUnix <ken.unix.guy@gmail.com> wrote:

> So, at this point what is the safest road to take?
>
> Stick with v7?
>
I'm not a lawyer - this is not legal advice. This is how I
personally analyze these Ancient UNIX license wording against the history
of how different UNIX releases we made publically available. *YMMV - get a
legal opinion and form your own opinion and make a personal choice.*

The Ancient UNIX license -- the document Warren has on the site (
https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says [please go read it yourself]:

1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i)
specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and
(iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.

My take ...

   - Any UNIX package based on the Research Editions 1-7 and 32V is
   allowed. This family includes the16-bit 1BSD, 2BSD, 2.9-11BSD and 32V based
   3BSD, 4BSD, 4.1BSD, 4.2BSD, 4.3BSD and 4.4BSD.
   - PWB1.0 and 2.0 are 16-bit - although PWB 2.0 was not officially
   released outside of the Bell System (except possibly for the note suggested
   about Wollongong advertising they had it).  But under the 16-bit rule - I
   interpret both PWB 1.0 and 2.0 as being covered.
   - PWB 3.0 (*a.k.a.* System III) was released for both PDP-11 and Vaxen
   and was thus generally available to the Unix (source) licensees.   Under
   the 16-bit rule, I would *personally interpret* that PWB 3.0 is covered
   since it is not explicitly called out (as System V is called out).
   - This also puts PWB 4.0 in an interesting place. Like PWB 2.0, it was
   never released outside of the Bell System; although Bell folks had 16-bit
   versions, they were starting to be depreciated in favor of Vaxen and
   WE32000/3B-based ISAs. Given the exclusion starts at System V and *there
   was a 16-bit version* for PWB 4.0 internally, again, I personally *suspect
   it's okay*, but get your own legal opinion, please.
   - Clearly, anything* no matter the *ISA any release is based on System
   V, SVR1, SVR2, SVR3, SVR4, and SVR5 has been excluded in that license,
   which means unless the current IP owners of System V-based UNIX make a
   new license, I personally interpret that as a no-no according to this
   license.


Some other random thoughts..


   - Some of the commercial UNIXs (as described by Charlie WRT to Dell),
   have encumberments beyond AT&Ts - say IP from MIPs whose compiler was often
   used and was not based on the AT&T IP and Transcript or PostScript, which
   came from Adobe.   For instance, besides Dell, DEC, HP, IBM's versions have
   these types of IP issues in Ultrix/HPUX/AIX.  I *suspect *many if not
   most commercial UNIX released would be in the same situation - particularly
   given Charlie example of Dell who was making a 'Wintel' release.
   - IBM, HP, and Sun all bought out their UNIX license from AT&T at some
   point and owned the right to do whatever they wanted with it. And as has
   been discussed here, a version of Solaris which had SVR4 code in it was
   released by Sun and later taken back in by Oracle.   Some questions for
   your lawyers would be:


   1. If Solaris was released, doesn't that make at least the bits from
      that release available forever?      Clearly, some people on
this list have
      made that interpretation - I'm personally not willing to take that risk.
      2. Assume 1 seems to mean that the Solaris IP from that release is
      free to be examined and used since it was partly based on SVR4, does that
      make SVR4 available also? *i.e.* it does not matter what the owners
      of the SVR4 IP think, Sun legally released it with their license?     To
      me, this gets back to the USL vs. BSDi/UCB case ok what was what, and the
      question is how to show some portion of the code base was or want not
      released by Sun and what parts had been.   Again, I personally will not
      take that risk.


ᐧ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6221 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16  0:36                 ` Rich Salz
  2023-03-16  1:55                   ` G. Branden Robinson
@ 2023-03-16 21:14                   ` Dave Horsfall
  2023-03-17  0:33                     ` Rich Salz
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2023-03-16 21:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 284 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Rich Salz wrote:

> All you need is one person who can claim (or show) that they are a 
> copyright holder to serve TUHS with a DMCA take-down, and kiss this 
> group goodbye.

Call me naïve, but how would a foreign law be enforced in Australia?

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
                           ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
@ 2023-03-16  4:37         ` Dave Horsfall
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2023-03-16  4:37 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Larry McVoy wrote:

> Is there any market for System V at this point?  [...]

I hope not; SysVile was corporatised Unix...

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16  1:15               ` Larry McVoy
@ 2023-03-16  2:14                 ` Luther Johnson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Luther Johnson @ 2023-03-16  2:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: tuhs

Well if I can help, please let me know.

On 03/15/2023 06:15 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 04:41:53PM -0700, Luther Johnson wrote:
>> I think the real risk is not measured in dollars, but potential damage to
>> reputations, ill will, the perception that it's not legal or kosher, etc.
>>
>> So I completely understand this well-founded caution.
>>
>> However if anyone was interested in approaching the license holders and
>> seeing if licenses could be obtained or purchased, I'm interested in that.
> I think Clem is working on something maybe not quite the same as
> purchasing licenses, more trying to free up old stuff that is unlikely
> to generate revenue.  The contacts he develops might be useful.
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16  0:36                 ` Rich Salz
@ 2023-03-16  1:55                   ` G. Branden Robinson
  2023-03-16 21:14                   ` Dave Horsfall
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: G. Branden Robinson @ 2023-03-16  1:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3684 bytes --]

[replying only to list]

At 2023-03-15T20:36:06-0400, Rich Salz wrote:
> > Yea. However, there could be novel, perhaps untested, legal theories
> > one could use in this circumstance.
> 
> All you need is one person who can claim (or show) that they are a
> copyright holder to serve TUHS with a DMCA take-down, and kiss this
> group goodbye.

Speaking here as an observer of many DMCA fights over the past ~25
years, having become politically animated by it at the time of the law's
passage, but not as a person qualified to give legal advice (because I'm
not a lawyer)...

I would counsel against this sort of pessimism.  Sites survive DMCA
takedown notices all the time.  (Part of) the point of the takedown
notices prescribed by the DMCA is that if you comply with one, your
liability ends there.  Your whole site doesn't have to die, just the
infringing material.

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/i-got-a-dmca-notice-now-what

Secondly, in a situation of obvious historical and educational
interest[1], arguably low commercial impact, and almost certainly no
meaningful trade secret implications[2], it's an issue worth
pursuing--if not on the TUHS site, then perhaps one set up for this
express purpose.

Thirdly, a DMCA takedown notice has specifically identify the allegedly
infringed work and the copyright holder.  For cases where the chain of
title is unclear or complicated by a multi-party revision history, this
may not so easily be asserted with confidence to a standard that would
satisfy the DMCA law.  How much money did IBM and SCOX(E) spend on this
very issue, with it _still_ remaining unresolved?  My guess is "more
than a rights holder could possibly hope to recover in damages even in a
lunatic fringe fantasty".

Fourthly, a DMCA takedown notice can be challenged with a
counter-notice.  If the takedown notice is defective, serving
counter-notice often (usually?) disposes of the issue for practical
purposes.[3]  The Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken on cases like
this, and won.  Doubtless many defective or even fraudulent takedown
notices have been successful because the recipient lacked the courage to
respond, demanding clarification as they are entitled to under the law.

Protecting ordinary Internet users and business from investigation,
seizure, and litigation by overbearing private firms and the government
agencies to which they've outsource enforcement is EFF's literal origin
story.[5]

They also happen to have attorneys-at-law, and _can_ dispense legal
advice.

Regards,
Branden

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lenz_v._Universal_Music_Corp.

[2] I trust we all recall the amusement of reading the source to the
    System V "true" and "false" shell scripts on many thousands of
    machines accessible to college undergraduates, which were proclaimed
    as highly sensitive "UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T" or
    similar verbiage.

[3] It may be impossible to know any real data here.  Like the use of
    deadly force by U.S. police agencies[4], there is no reporting
    requirement for issuance of DMCA takedown notices, and almost
    certainly no interest among institutional copyright holders and
    their trade cartels (the MPAA, the RIAA, etc.) to report reception
    of counter-notices and the success rate of counter-notices at
    voiding the takedown notice.  (You can be sure we'd hear all about
    it if the success rate were extremely low.)

[4] https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/us/police-use-of-force-legislation/index.html

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Jackson_Games,_Inc._v._United_States_Secret_Service

[-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-16  0:29               ` Warner Losh
@ 2023-03-16  1:15               ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-16  2:14                 ` Luther Johnson
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2023-03-16  1:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luther Johnson; +Cc: tuhs

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 04:41:53PM -0700, Luther Johnson wrote:
> I think the real risk is not measured in dollars, but potential damage to
> reputations, ill will, the perception that it's not legal or kosher, etc.
> 
> So I completely understand this well-founded caution.
> 
> However if anyone was interested in approaching the license holders and
> seeing if licenses could be obtained or purchased, I'm interested in that.

I think Clem is working on something maybe not quite the same as
purchasing licenses, more trying to free up old stuff that is unlikely
to generate revenue.  The contacts he develops might be useful.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-16  0:29               ` Warner Losh
@ 2023-03-16  0:36                 ` Rich Salz
  2023-03-16  1:55                   ` G. Branden Robinson
  2023-03-16 21:14                   ` Dave Horsfall
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Rich Salz @ 2023-03-16  0:36 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 262 bytes --]

> Yea. However, there could be novel, perhaps untested, legal theories one
> could use in this circumstance.
>

All you need is one person who can claim (or show) that they are a
copyright holder to serve TUHS with a DMCA take-down, and kiss this group
goodbye.

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 521 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
@ 2023-03-16  0:29               ` Warner Losh
  2023-03-16  0:36                 ` Rich Salz
  2023-03-16  1:15               ` Larry McVoy
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2023-03-16  0:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Luther Johnson; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3532 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, 5:42 PM Luther Johnson <luther@makerlisp.com> wrote:

> I think the real risk is not measured in dollars, but potential damage to
> reputations, ill will, the perception that it's not legal or kosher, etc.
>
Yea. However, there could be novel, perhaps untested, legal theories one
could use in this circumstance. THE LAW often times isn't cut and died like
engineering.

In this case one could likely argue fair use because the purpose is
educational and only a small portion of the source is ever disclosed at any
time. One look no further than google books to see this working out. They
won cases with similar broad stroke outlines, though they had the resources
to win...

My earlier analysis was more on the worst case financial side of things.

> I completely understand this well-founded caution.

As do I, to be honest.

However if anyone was interested in approaching the license holders and
> seeing if licenses could be obtained or purchased, I'm interested in that.
>

Yea. Only way I see that working is buying the rights outright... I suspect
too few licenses would be sold to recoup even a modest amount of effort it
would take. I'd bet it would only be a modest sum at this point..

Warner

On 03/15/2023 04:30 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:56 PM steve jenkin <sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au>
> wrote:
>
>> "What “uses” would SysV codebase have now?" may be a better Q.
>>
>
> A System V release 2 might have very limited use (old VAXen are all it ran
> on from
> AT&T though there were at least a few ports: 68k for sure).
>
> The successor code base of OpenIndiana which forked from OpenSolaris which
> was System Vr4 plus a bunch... And that's open... illumos is still using
> that for its distribution... They'd have been totally dead, imho, were it
> not for OpenZFS using illumos for so long as the reference platform (that's
> changed, so now Linux and FreeBSD are the reference platforms, though one
> of those two is more equal than the other).
>
> But the successor code base being open isn't quite the same as System V
> being open. There's no 'orphan exception' or 'abandonware rider' that would
> allow us to distribute this without any legal risk.
>
> But there's the rub: what's the legal risk. The legal risk here is that
> somebody could show up and assert they have rights to the software, and
> that we're distributing it illegally. Actual damages likely are near $0
> these days, but statutory damages could become quite excessive. But to get
> damages, one would likely need a lot of money to fight it, and there's not
> any kind of real revenue stream from System V today (let alone from System
> V r2). Plus, were this successfully prosecuted, it's not like that would
> increase that revenue stream: TUHS has no assets, so the current IP owner
> would have to somehow assess there was blood to be had from this stone,
> which is unlikely... So, how do you rate the risk of a low-probability,
> high damage outcome vs the near certainty of a no-damage outcome. Since
> it's none of our butt's but Warren's, he gets to decide his comfort zone
> here. :)
>
> So the risk of adverse consequences is likely low, but not zero were we to
> distribute this without a license to do so. There's plenty of others that
> are doing so today, but that's between the others and whatever IP owners
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice...
>
> Warner
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6121 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
  2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
@ 2023-03-15 23:44             ` Brad Spencer
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Brad Spencer @ 2023-03-15 23:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warner Losh; +Cc: sjenkin, tuhs

Warner Losh <imp@bsdimp.com> writes:

[snip]

> The successor code base of OpenIndiana which forked from OpenSolaris which
> was System Vr4 plus a bunch... And that's open... illumos is still using
> that for its distribution... They'd have been totally dead, imho, were it
> not for OpenZFS using illumos for so long as the reference platform (that's
> changed, so now Linux and FreeBSD are the reference platforms, though one
> of those two is more equal than the other).

[snip]

SmartOS uses Illumos as upstream and was used by Joyent Inc. until last
year when Joyent sold that part of the buiness to MNX.  It is a very
real thing being used as a cloud container like OS.  See
https://www.tritondatacenter.com/smartos for more info...  The last
$DAYJOB I had for a pretty big retail company used it for its private,
in house cloud.  It is all open source, as it is based upon OpenSolaris
(SVR4ish) at its core but it has been mentioned that isn't quite SVR2
for the Vax.




-- 
Brad Spencer - brad@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
@ 2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-16  0:29               ` Warner Losh
  2023-03-16  1:15               ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 23:44             ` Brad Spencer
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Luther Johnson @ 2023-03-15 23:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2699 bytes --]

I think the real risk is not measured in dollars, but potential damage 
to reputations, ill will, the perception that it's not legal or kosher, etc.

So I completely understand this well-founded caution.

However if anyone was interested in approaching the license holders and 
seeing if licenses could be obtained or purchased, I'm interested in that.

On 03/15/2023 04:30 PM, Warner Losh wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:56 PM steve jenkin <sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au 
> <mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au>> wrote:
>
>     "What “uses” would SysV codebase have now?" may be a better Q.
>
>
> A System V release 2 might have very limited use (old VAXen are all it 
> ran on from
> AT&T though there were at least a few ports: 68k for sure).
>
> The successor code base of OpenIndiana which forked from OpenSolaris 
> which was System Vr4 plus a bunch... And that's open... illumos is 
> still using that for its distribution... They'd have been totally 
> dead, imho, were it not for OpenZFS using illumos for so long as the 
> reference platform (that's changed, so now Linux and FreeBSD are the 
> reference platforms, though one of those two is more equal than the 
> other).
>
> But the successor code base being open isn't quite the same as System 
> V being open. There's no 'orphan exception' or 'abandonware rider' 
> that would allow us to distribute this without any legal risk.
>
> But there's the rub: what's the legal risk. The legal risk here is 
> that somebody could show up and assert they have rights to the 
> software, and that we're distributing it illegally. Actual damages 
> likely are near $0 these days, but statutory damages could become 
> quite excessive. But to get damages, one would likely need a lot of 
> money to fight it, and there's not any kind of real revenue stream 
> from System V today (let alone from System V r2). Plus, were this 
> successfully prosecuted, it's not like that would increase that 
> revenue stream: TUHS has no assets, so the current IP owner would have 
> to somehow assess there was blood to be had from this stone, which is 
> unlikely... So, how do you rate the risk of a low-probability, high 
> damage outcome vs the near certainty of a no-damage outcome. Since 
> it's none of our butt's but Warren's, he gets to decide his comfort 
> zone here. :)
>
> So the risk of adverse consequences is likely low, but not zero were 
> we to distribute this without a license to do so. There's plenty of 
> others that are doing so today, but that's between the others and 
> whatever IP owners
>
> Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice...
>
> Warner
>


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4354 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
  2023-03-15 22:15           ` Larry McVoy
@ 2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
  2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-15 23:44             ` Brad Spencer
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Warner Losh @ 2023-03-15 23:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: steve jenkin; +Cc: TUHS

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2137 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:56 PM steve jenkin <sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au>
wrote:

> "What “uses” would SysV codebase have now?" may be a better Q.
>

A System V release 2 might have very limited use (old VAXen are all it ran
on from
AT&T though there were at least a few ports: 68k for sure).

The successor code base of OpenIndiana which forked from OpenSolaris which
was System Vr4 plus a bunch... And that's open... illumos is still using
that for its distribution... They'd have been totally dead, imho, were it
not for OpenZFS using illumos for so long as the reference platform (that's
changed, so now Linux and FreeBSD are the reference platforms, though one
of those two is more equal than the other).

But the successor code base being open isn't quite the same as System V
being open. There's no 'orphan exception' or 'abandonware rider' that would
allow us to distribute this without any legal risk.

But there's the rub: what's the legal risk. The legal risk here is that
somebody could show up and assert they have rights to the software, and
that we're distributing it illegally. Actual damages likely are near $0
these days, but statutory damages could become quite excessive. But to get
damages, one would likely need a lot of money to fight it, and there's not
any kind of real revenue stream from System V today (let alone from System
V r2). Plus, were this successfully prosecuted, it's not like that would
increase that revenue stream: TUHS has no assets, so the current IP owner
would have to somehow assess there was blood to be had from this stone,
which is unlikely... So, how do you rate the risk of a low-probability,
high damage outcome vs the near certainty of a no-damage outcome. Since
it's none of our butt's but Warren's, he gets to decide his comfort zone
here. :)

So the risk of adverse consequences is likely low, but not zero were we to
distribute this without a license to do so. There's plenty of others that
are doing so today, but that's between the others and whatever IP owners

Disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer, and this isn't legal advice...

Warner

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2699 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
@ 2023-03-15 22:15           ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2023-03-15 22:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: steve jenkin; +Cc: TUHS

On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 08:56:23AM +1100, steve jenkin wrote:
> 
> 
> > On 16 Mar 2023, at 08:22, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> > 
> > Is there any market for System V at this point?  I would think it's 
> > Windows, MacOS, Linux and anything else is an also ran at this point.
> 
> Is this the right question, treating System V as commercial?

Yeah, if there are commercial users of that source base someone will
think there is money in and you might as well give up.  If there are
no commercial users of that source base, you have a chance that nobody
cares.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:50         ` Luther Johnson
@ 2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
  2023-03-15 22:15           ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
  2023-03-16  4:37         ` Dave Horsfall
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: steve jenkin @ 2023-03-15 21:56 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: TUHS



> On 16 Mar 2023, at 08:22, Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
> 
> Is there any market for System V at this point?  I would think it's 
> Windows, MacOS, Linux and anything else is an also ran at this point.

Is this the right question, treating System V as commercial?

"What “uses” would SysV codebase have now?" may be a better Q.

Minor commercial use, restricted to old hardware.

A platform for research and hobbyist non-commercial use.

And for the intellectually curious,
to document the evolution of the codebase through time.
[ for ‘completeness’ of the git repo ]

At best, academically it might enable a comparative code course
and some PhD’s.

I think it’d be quite some legacy to leave a complete tree
of the evolution of Unix, from the earliest versions,
out to the end.

But having corporates give up any “Intellectual Property”
isn’t likely. Not until a bunch of people have died :)

--
Steve Jenkin, IT Systems and Design 
0412 786 915 (+61 412 786 915)
PO Box 38, Kippax ACT 2615, AUSTRALIA

mailto:sjenkin@canb.auug.org.au http://members.tip.net.au/~sjenkin


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
@ 2023-03-15 21:50         ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
  2023-03-16  4:37         ` Dave Horsfall
  3 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Luther Johnson @ 2023-03-15 21:50 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

I'm interested for certain versions of the Portable C Compiler, and 
maybe non-GNU implementations of other utilities, I'd like to license 
the source. I'm aware of the re-booted PCC, but I prefer the authentic 
versions.

On 03/15/2023 02:22 PM, Larry McVoy wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Seth Morabito wrote:
>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>>> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:03???PM Warren Toomey via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>>>> I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(
>>> Probably a good idea.
>>>> But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.
>>> The Ancient UNIX license does not release anything beyond V7 - as the document you have on the site (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says:
>>>
>>>> 1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.
>>> SVR4 is by definition System V.
>> Do we know with any certainty who currently owns the System V intellectual property? I think (probably) it's now the Canadian company OpenText, who just bought Micro Focus in January, who absorbed the Attachmate Group in 2014, who bought Novell in 2011, who gobbled up USL in 1992... what a tangled web. I don't even know where one would begin trying to track down someone to give permission to archive System V source code.
> Is there any market for System V at this point?  I would think it's
> Windows, MacOS, Linux and anything else is an also ran at this point.
>
> Can anyone point to a machine that was sold in the last few years that
> ran some System V based OS?
>


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:38           ` KenUnix
@ 2023-03-15 21:46           ` Steve Nickolas
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Steve Nickolas @ 2023-03-15 21:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 688 bytes --]

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, Clem Cole wrote:

> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:22 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there any market for System V at this point?
>
> Unlikely, but ... companies are funny about IP rights.    A number of us
> are working on a more general solution that if we can identify the holders
> of the System V IP might help solve this issue.    As my father you to say,
> "make haste ... slowly."
> ᐧ
>

Certainly if the whole issue could be cleared up favorably, like 3-clause 
or even GNU, my rewrite would be less necessary to me and I could just 
clean up the code that already exists.

Rewriting ls(1) is major yikes on trikes.

-uso.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
@ 2023-03-15 21:38           ` KenUnix
  2023-03-16 23:18             ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:46           ` Steve Nickolas
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: KenUnix @ 2023-03-15 21:38 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clem Cole; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 599 bytes --]

So, at this point what is the safest road to take?

Stick with v7?

Ken


On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:28 PM Clem Cole <clemc@ccc.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:22 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Is there any market for System V at this point?
>
> Unlikely, but ... companies are funny about IP rights.    A number of us
> are working on a more general solution that if we can identify the holders
> of the System V IP might help solve this issue.    As my father you to say,
> "make haste ... slowly."
> ᐧ
>


-- 
End of line
JOB TERMINATED

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1877 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
@ 2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:38           ` KenUnix
  2023-03-15 21:46           ` Steve Nickolas
  2023-03-15 21:50         ` Luther Johnson
                           ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  3 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2023-03-15 21:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Larry McVoy; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 385 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:22 PM Larry McVoy <lm@mcvoy.com> wrote:

>
> Is there any market for System V at this point?

Unlikely, but ... companies are funny about IP rights.    A number of us
are working on a more general solution that if we can identify the holders
of the System V IP might help solve this issue.    As my father you to say,
"make haste ... slowly."
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1153 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:18     ` Seth Morabito
@ 2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
  2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
                           ` (3 more replies)
  0 siblings, 4 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Larry McVoy @ 2023-03-15 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Seth Morabito; +Cc: tuhs

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 02:18:30PM -0700, Seth Morabito wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:03???PM Warren Toomey via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
> >> I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(
> > Probably a good idea. 
> >> 
> >> But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.
> > The Ancient UNIX license does not release anything beyond V7 - as the document you have on the site (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says:
> > 
> >> 1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.
> > SVR4 is by definition System V.
> 
> Do we know with any certainty who currently owns the System V intellectual property? I think (probably) it's now the Canadian company OpenText, who just bought Micro Focus in January, who absorbed the Attachmate Group in 2014, who bought Novell in 2011, who gobbled up USL in 1992... what a tangled web. I don't even know where one would begin trying to track down someone to give permission to archive System V source code.

Is there any market for System V at this point?  I would think it's 
Windows, MacOS, Linux and anything else is an also ran at this point.

Can anyone point to a machine that was sold in the last few years that
ran some System V based OS?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:08   ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:15     ` Luther Johnson
@ 2023-03-15 21:18     ` Seth Morabito
  2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Seth Morabito @ 2023-03-15 21:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 2:08 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:03 PM Warren Toomey via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:
>> I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(
> Probably a good idea. 
>> 
>> But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.
> The Ancient UNIX license does not release anything beyond V7 - as the document you have on the site (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says:
> 
>> 1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.
> SVR4 is by definition System V.

Do we know with any certainty who currently owns the System V intellectual property? I think (probably) it's now the Canadian company OpenText, who just bought Micro Focus in January, who absorbed the Attachmate Group in 2014, who bought Novell in 2011, who gobbled up USL in 1992... what a tangled web. I don't even know where one would begin trying to track down someone to give permission to archive System V source code.

-Seth
-- 
  Seth Morabito * Poulsbo, WA * https://loomcom.com/

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:08   ` Clem Cole
@ 2023-03-15 21:15     ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-15 21:18     ` Seth Morabito
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Luther Johnson @ 2023-03-15 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 843 bytes --]

Is Micro Focus now the owner of the System V license/code ?

On 03/15/2023 02:08 PM, Clem Cole wrote:
>
>
> On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:03 PM Warren Toomey via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org 
> <mailto:tuhs@tuhs.org>> wrote:
>
>     I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(
>
> Probably a good idea.
>
>
>     But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.
>
> The Ancient UNIX license does not release anything beyond V7 - as the 
> document you have on the site (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says:
>
>     1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that
>     is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the
>     32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V
>     andsuccessor operating systems.
>
> SVR4 is by definition System V.
>
> ᐧ
> ᐧ


[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4422 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 21:03 ` Warren Toomey via TUHS
@ 2023-03-15 21:08   ` Clem Cole
  2023-03-15 21:15     ` Luther Johnson
  2023-03-15 21:18     ` Seth Morabito
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: Clem Cole @ 2023-03-15 21:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Warren Toomey; +Cc: tuhs

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 652 bytes --]

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 5:03 PM Warren Toomey via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org>
wrote:

> I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(
>
Probably a good idea.

>
> But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.
>
The Ancient UNIX license does not release anything beyond V7 - as the
document you have on the site (https://www.tuhs.org/ancient.html) says:

1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i)
specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and
(iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.

SVR4 is by definition System V.

ᐧ
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2951 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15 11:59 Noel Chiappa
@ 2023-03-15 21:03 ` Warren Toomey via TUHS
  2023-03-15 21:08   ` Clem Cole
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Warren Toomey via TUHS @ 2023-03-15 21:03 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 07:59:47AM -0400, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> While we're talking about SysV, maybe it's time to add the VAX version (and
> maybe the 3B2 one too) to the Unix Tree at TUHS, to make it easy to look at? I
> know there was at one point a good reson to be hesitant aout so doing, but the
> VAX version is now obsolete, and it is available through archive.org:

I'm still worried about my legal butt :-(

But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list.

Thanks, Warren

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
@ 2023-03-15 11:59 Noel Chiappa
  2023-03-15 21:03 ` Warren Toomey via TUHS
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Noel Chiappa @ 2023-03-15 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

    > From: KenUnix

    > This is what is in conf.c:
    > ...
    > Does this help in determining major/minor number for lp?

Do you see a line in 'cdevsw' for the lpt? (I can't see one.)


While we're talking about SysV, maybe it's time to add the VAX version (and
maybe the 3B2 one too) to the Unix Tree at TUHS, to make it easy to look at? I
know there was at one point a good reson to be hesitant aout so doing, but the
VAX version is now obsolete, and it is available through archive.org:

    https://archive.org/details/ATTUNIXSystemVRelease4Version2

just not in an easy to peruse form.

     Noel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15  8:52   ` Dave Horsfall
@ 2023-03-15 11:09     ` KenUnix
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 35+ messages in thread
From: KenUnix @ 2023-03-15 11:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Dave Horsfall; +Cc: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2050 bytes --]

In: /usr/src/uts/vax/cf

This is what is in conf.c:
struct cdevsw cdevsw[] = {
/* 0*/  conopen,        conclose,       conread,        conwrite,
conioctl,       0,
/* 1*/  dzopen, dzclose,        dzread, dzwrite,        dzioctl,
 dz_tty,
/* 2*/  syopen, nulldev,        syread, sywrite,        syioctl,        0,
/* 3*/  nulldev,        nulldev,        mmread, mmwrite,        nodev,  0,
/* 4*/  gdopen, gdclose,        gdread, gdwrite,        nodev,  0,
/* 5*/  htopen, htclose,        htread, htwrite,        nodev,  0,
/* 6*/  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  0,
/* 7*/  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  nodev,  0,
/* 8*/  erropen,        errclose,       errread,        nodev,  nodev,  0,
};

In "master" sample entries are:
ts11    4       36      115     ts      4       1       5       1       5
tu78    1       36      515     hu      0       1       5       4       5
rm05    1       76      515     hm      0       0       4       8       5
nsc     4       77      5       nsc     8       0       10      1       5
    ndb ct
*lp11    4       73      5       lp      4       0       6       1       4*
dn11    4       32      6       dn      8       0       7       4       5
vp      4       33      5       vp      16      0       14      1       5
    vp
dmc11   8       37      6       dmc     8       0       19      1       5

Those numbers do not mean much to me.

Does this help in determining major/minor number for lp?

Thanks
Ken



On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 4:53 AM Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > That is, 'c' for character device, major device is the index in cdevsw,
> > and minor device indicates which physical one to use. Since you only
> > have one, it should be 0.
>
> There's also the possibility of using the upper-order bits to pass flags,
> although there's not a lot that you can do with a printer (control of page
> throw, etc).
>
> -- Dave
>


-- 
End of line
JOB TERMINATED

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3158 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15  8:05 ` arnold
@ 2023-03-15  8:52   ` Dave Horsfall
  2023-03-15 11:09     ` KenUnix
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Dave Horsfall @ 2023-03-15  8:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: The Eunuchs Hysterical Society

On Wed, 15 Mar 2023, arnold@skeeve.com wrote:

[...]

> That is, 'c' for character device, major device is the index in cdevsw, 
> and minor device indicates which physical one to use. Since you only 
> have one, it should be 0.

There's also the possibility of using the upper-order bits to pass flags, 
although there's not a lot that you can do with a printer (control of page 
throw, etc).

-- Dave

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
  2023-03-15  0:59 Noel Chiappa
@ 2023-03-15  8:05 ` arnold
  2023-03-15  8:52   ` Dave Horsfall
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: arnold @ 2023-03-15  8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs, jnc

jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa) wrote:

>     > From: Ken Unix
>
>     > I have mknod but need the (c,b) major/minor numbers for /dev/lp
>
> It looks like SysV still has conf.c; you're looking for 'cdevsw'.
>
>    Noel

To be more explicit, you need to find the index in cdevsw of the lp
device.  You will then want to run

	mknod c <index> 0 /dev/lp  # I think that's the right argument order

That is, 'c' for character device, major device is the index in cdevsw,
and minor device indicates which physical one to use. Since you only
have one, it should be 0.

If the above is not correct, someone will correct me, I'm sure. :-)

HTH,

Arnold

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

* [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780
@ 2023-03-15  0:59 Noel Chiappa
  2023-03-15  8:05 ` arnold
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 35+ messages in thread
From: Noel Chiappa @ 2023-03-15  0:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: tuhs

    > From: Ken Unix

    > I have mknod but need the (c,b) major/minor numbers for /dev/lp

It looks like SysV still has conf.c; you're looking for 'cdevsw'.

   Noel

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 35+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2023-03-17  3:17 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 35+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2023-03-15 22:25 [TUHS] Re: UNIX System V Release 2.2 gdts Vax-780 Noel Chiappa
2023-03-15 22:39 ` segaloco via TUHS
  -- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2023-03-15 11:59 Noel Chiappa
2023-03-15 21:03 ` Warren Toomey via TUHS
2023-03-15 21:08   ` Clem Cole
2023-03-15 21:15     ` Luther Johnson
2023-03-15 21:18     ` Seth Morabito
2023-03-15 21:22       ` Larry McVoy
2023-03-15 21:27         ` Clem Cole
2023-03-15 21:38           ` KenUnix
2023-03-16 23:18             ` Clem Cole
2023-03-16 23:48               ` Charles H. Sauer (he/him)
2023-03-17  1:08                 ` Steve Nickolas
2023-03-15 21:46           ` Steve Nickolas
2023-03-15 21:50         ` Luther Johnson
2023-03-15 21:56         ` steve jenkin
2023-03-15 22:15           ` Larry McVoy
2023-03-15 23:30           ` Warner Losh
2023-03-15 23:41             ` Luther Johnson
2023-03-16  0:29               ` Warner Losh
2023-03-16  0:36                 ` Rich Salz
2023-03-16  1:55                   ` G. Branden Robinson
2023-03-16 21:14                   ` Dave Horsfall
2023-03-17  0:33                     ` Rich Salz
2023-03-17  1:05                       ` segaloco via TUHS
2023-03-17  2:03                         ` G. Branden Robinson
2023-03-17  3:17                           ` Dave Horsfall
2023-03-16  1:15               ` Larry McVoy
2023-03-16  2:14                 ` Luther Johnson
2023-03-15 23:44             ` Brad Spencer
2023-03-16  4:37         ` Dave Horsfall
2023-03-15  0:59 Noel Chiappa
2023-03-15  8:05 ` arnold
2023-03-15  8:52   ` Dave Horsfall
2023-03-15 11:09     ` KenUnix

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).