> 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
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
[-- 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 --]
[-- 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 --]
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/
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?
[-- 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 --]
[-- 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 --]
[-- 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.
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?
>
> 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
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.
[-- 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 --]
[-- 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 --]
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
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023, at 14:03, Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > I'm still worried about my legal butt :-( Speaking of, there’s also the OSF/1.0 source from the same uploader: https://archive.org/details/SapphireDensetsu_gmail_OSF1 -- ~j
[-- 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 --]
[-- 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 --]
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.
[-- 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 --]
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.
>
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
[-- 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
[-- 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 --]
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
[-- 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 --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3402 bytes --] [replying to list only; and yeah, I've probably developed a COFF here] At 2023-03-16T20:33:27-0400, Rich Salz 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. The Berne Convention on Copyright from 1886(!) is very far from the last word on these sorts of questions. As I understand it, the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) superseded the Berne Convention in multiple respects and was in force from after World War II until 1995. In 1995, it was superseded by the Uruguay Round Agreements. Also in 1995, the TRIPS agreement came into force, and the Doha Declaration later modified some of the provisions of TRIPS. The headline item was a gesture in the direction of suspension of patent enforcement for life-saving medications. This is back when the cost of anti-retroviral drugs for HIV/AIDS was a bad look for pharmaceutical companies that wanted to charge more than the average sub-Saharan African country's GDP for medicine in sufficient quantity to address the needs of their populations. These trade agreements are like bills in the U.S. Congress; they are not topically controlled, and all kinds of riders and codicils gets stuck into them all the time. A popular theme of these was an upward ratched on copyright durations. In the name of "harmonization", the length of copyright monopolies was always extended to the longest of any member country. The copyright cartels would then go back to their home country legislatures (this was often the U.S.), get a copyright term extension act passed, then impose that on the rest of the world via trade agreements. I recommend Jessica Litman's book _Digital Copyright_ for background on this stuff. It is available for free download.[2] It could also badly use a second edition. My personal opinion is that if a copyright holder wants to "get you", they can, in most countries of the world. As ever, an important question is whether it costs more to "get you" than they can extract from you even if they give you a complete thrashing in court. My surmise is that copyright holders figured this out at some point prior to 1897, which is when the first _criminal_ copyright statute was passed in the United States.[3] Apparently the perceived problem back then was the unlicensed performance (presumably of plays, songs, and other musical forms). The advent of audio and visual recording, and of the mimeograph machine at about the same time, seems to have shifted the concerns of copyright holders significantly (especially for music licensing). Whether these technologies directly precipitated the extension of copyright terms in 1909 (to 28 years, renewable for a total of 56 years), I'd be curious to learn. Regards, Branden [1] https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm [2] https://repository.law.umich.edu/books/1/ [3] Prior to this, copyright enforcement in the U.S. was wholly a matter for the civil courts. Where, in my opinion, it should have remained. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criminal_copyright_law_in_the_United_States [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
[-- 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 --]
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.
[-- 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 --]
> 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: On Thu, Mar 16, 2023 at 07:03:25AM +1000, Warren Toomey via TUHS wrote: > I'm still worried about my legal butt :-( > But I'd be interested in the viewpoints of people here on the list. All, thanks to you all for the feedback here on the list and in your private e-mails. I haven't answered most of you. I'm keen to see what sort of arrangement the Open SIMH people can work out in the long term. For now, I'm going to remain conservative and choose to not host SysV on the tuhs.org site. The source is available elsewhere for those that want to peruse it. And on the Unix Tree (https://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree) there is a PDP-11 version of SysV and a snapshot of OpenSolaris which is SysV-derived. As always, I have a write-only "hidden" Unix Archive with a bunch of stuff that I can't put up in the main Unix Archive for legal and copyright reasons. If you have material that falls into this category and you'd like an off-site backup, feel free to contact me. Cheers, Warren
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
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1064 bytes --] At 2023-03-17T14:17:34+1100, Dave Horsfall wrote: > 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? Apparently there is; reply-all seems to have become the norm over the past 20 years. I used to rail against it but I gave up. Now it seems some people (mainly younger people, perhaps) regard it as rude if I _don't_ CC them on mailing replies. Maybe they fear being ignored or circumvented in decision processes. > 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... Years ago, the header "Mail-Followup-To" was developed as a convention to get this under control.[1] Maybe because the maintainers of GMail, Outlook, and other web email portals that provided spam filtering services, found themselves with better things to do than support it, we arrived where we are today. :( Regards, Branden [1] https://cr.yp.to/proto/replyto.html [-- Attachment #2: signature.asc --] [-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
On 17/03/2023 03:30, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
> At 2023-03-17T14:17:34+1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Apparently there is; reply-all seems to have become the norm over the
Thunderbird has Reply, Reply-All, and Reply-List. I'm sure you can
guess which I'm using for this message.
--
Pete
Pete Turnbull
I just hit whatever reply button I wind up hitting, usually reply all. End of the day, it's just words on a screen, if I have to skip past a few emails here and there due to random Cc lists, whatever, I'm not sorting physical junk mail, it all goes away when I turn off the screen.
- Matt G.
------- Original Message -------
On Friday, March 17th, 2023 at 8:12 AM, Pete Turnbull <pete@dunnington.plus.com> wrote:
> On 17/03/2023 03:30, G. Branden Robinson wrote:
>
> > At 2023-03-17T14:17:34+1100, Dave Horsfall wrote:
> >
> > > 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?
> >
> > Apparently there is; reply-all seems to have become the norm over the
>
>
> Thunderbird has Reply, Reply-All, and Reply-List. I'm sure you can
> guess which I'm using for this message.
>
> --
> Pete
> Pete Turnbull
On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> I just hit whatever reply button I wind up hitting, usually reply all.
> End of the day, it's just words on a screen, if I have to skip past a
> few emails here and there due to random Cc lists, whatever, I'm not
> sorting physical junk mail, it all goes away when I turn off the screen.
My client (alpine) offers "reply to sender", "reply to Reply-To", "reply
to all".
It's about a pain to deal with this list, though.
-uso.
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 665 bytes --] Having taken my daily troll pill, I am forced to ask, where is 'Reply-to-the-right-folks'? On Fri, Mar 17, 2023, 17:41 Steve Nickolas <usotsuki@buric.co> wrote: > On Fri, 17 Mar 2023, segaloco via TUHS wrote: > > > I just hit whatever reply button I wind up hitting, usually reply all. > > End of the day, it's just words on a screen, if I have to skip past a > > few emails here and there due to random Cc lists, whatever, I'm not > > sorting physical junk mail, it all goes away when I turn off the screen. > > My client (alpine) offers "reply to sender", "reply to Reply-To", "reply > to all". > > It's about a pain to deal with this list, though. > > -uso. > [-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1031 bytes --]
Marc Donner: Having taken my daily troll pill, I am forced to ask, where is 'Reply-to-the-right-folks'? ===== Don't they all use VMS, to own the Eunuchs? Norman Wilson Toronto ON