[TUHS] ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[TUHS] ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[Nelson H. F. Beebe]

This announcement just arrived on the ACM Bulletins list:

>> ...
>> Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Vrije Universiteit, receives the ACM Software
>> System Award (http://awards.acm.org/software-system) for MINIX, which
>> influenced the teaching of Operating Systems principles to multiple
>> generations of students and contributed to the design of widely used
>> operating systems, including Linux.
>> ...

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Nelson H. F. Beebe                    Tel: +1 801 581 5254                  -
- University of Utah                                                          -
- Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB    Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu  -
- 155 S 1400 E RM 233                       beebe@acm.org  beebe@computer.org -
- Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA    URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1120 bytes --]

Wonderful

Sent from a handheld expect more typos than usual


On Tue, Jun 18, 2024 at 11:41 AM Nelson H. F. Beebe <beebe@math.utah.edu>
wrote:

> This announcement just arrived on the ACM Bulletins list:
>
> >> ...
> >> Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Vrije Universiteit, receives the ACM Software
> >> System Award (http://awards.acm.org/software-system) for MINIX, which
> >> influenced the teaching of Operating Systems principles to multiple
> >> generations of students and contributed to the design of widely used
> >> operating systems, including Linux.
> >> ...
>
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Nelson H. F. Beebe                    Tel: +1 801 581 5254
>     -
> - University of Utah
>     -
> - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB    Internet e-mail:
> beebe@math.utah.edu  -
> - 155 S 1400 E RM 233                       beebe@acm.org
> beebe@computer.org -
> - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA    URL:
> http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2035 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Tuesday, June 18th, 2024 at 8:41 AM, Nelson H. F. Beebe <beebe@math.utah.edu> wrote:

> This announcement just arrived on the ACM Bulletins list:
> 
> > > ...
> > > Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Vrije Universiteit, receives the ACM Software
> > > System Award (http://awards.acm.org/software-system) for MINIX, which
> > > influenced the teaching of Operating Systems principles to multiple
> > > generations of students and contributed to the design of widely used
> > > operating systems, including Linux.
> > > ...
> 
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> - Nelson H. F. Beebe Tel: +1 801 581 5254 -
> - University of Utah -
> - Department of Mathematics, 110 LCB Internet e-mail: beebe@math.utah.edu -
> - 155 S 1400 E RM 233 beebe@acm.org beebe@computer.org -
> - Salt Lake City, UT 84112-0090, USA URL: http://www.math.utah.edu/~beebe/ -
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I have Andy Tanenbaum to thank in part for my interest in turning up UNIX 4.0 information due to the quote:

"Whatever happened to System IV is one of the great unsolved mysteries of computer science."

From Modern Operating Systems.  I took this as an impudent challenge and well here I am.

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, segaloco via TUHS wrote:

> I have Andy Tanenbaum to thank in part for my interest in turning up 
> UNIX 4.0 information due to the quote:
> 
> "Whatever happened to System IV is one of the great unsolved mysteries 
> of computer science."
> 
> From Modern Operating Systems.  I took this as an impudent challenge and 
> well here I am.

Well, don't keep us in suspense; what happened to SysIV?  Not that I'm a 
fan of either SysIII or SysV...

-- Dave

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Tuesday, June 18th, 2024 at 1:59 PM, Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
> 
> > I have Andy Tanenbaum to thank in part for my interest in turning up
> > UNIX 4.0 information due to the quote:
> > 
> > "Whatever happened to System IV is one of the great unsolved mysteries
> > of computer science."
> > 
> > From Modern Operating Systems. I took this as an impudent challenge and
> > well here I am.
> 
> 
> Well, don't keep us in suspense; what happened to SysIV? Not that I'm a
> fan of either SysIII or SysV...
> 
> -- Dave

It has left its droppings out there in the world, some of which were held onto by Arnold Robbins: https://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Documentation/Manuals/Unix_4.0/

And others found by myself on eBay and reconstructed: https://gitlab.com/segaloco/pwb4u_man

The story I've gotten is AT&T policy was to release odd-numbered versions, so PWB 1.0, System III, and System V made it out into the world, PWB 2.0 and Release 4.0 stayed in the labs.  In the most technical sense, System IV never existed, what could've become it remained a Bell System-only issue.

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[Dave Horsfall]

On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, segaloco via TUHS wrote:

[...]

> The story I've gotten is AT&T policy was to release odd-numbered 
> versions, so PWB 1.0, System III, and System V made it out into the 
> world, PWB 2.0 and Release 4.0 stayed in the labs.  In the most 
> technical sense, System IV never existed, what could've become it 
> remained a Bell System-only issue.

Thanks; I'd forgotten about AT&T's "odd-only" policy.

-- Dave

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[arnold]

Dave Horsfall <dave@horsfall.org> wrote:

> On Tue, 18 Jun 2024, segaloco via TUHS wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > The story I've gotten is AT&T policy was to release odd-numbered 
> > versions, so PWB 1.0, System III, and System V made it out into the 
> > world, PWB 2.0 and Release 4.0 stayed in the labs.  In the most 
> > technical sense, System IV never existed, what could've become it 
> > remained a Bell System-only issue.
>
> Thanks; I'd forgotten about AT&T's "odd-only" policy.
>
> -- Dave

In 1982 I did some contract C programming on Unix 4.0 on a PDP 11/70
at Southern Bell.  At the time, C programmers were not so common.

The "odd only" policy may be true, but it's not what I was told; I
was told that the policy was to release externally one version behind
what was being run internally.

With the consent decree done and Divestiture in the works, AT&T was
going to be allowed get into the computer business. So at some point,
someone decided that for System V, the current system would be released
externally.

I doubt we'll ever know the exact truth.

Interestingly, there was no printed reference manual for Unix 4.0;
I was given a 3.0 manual. The documents for Unix were for 4.0, these
were the equivalent of the Volume 2 doc in the research releases.
It seems that the major changes in 4.0 were kernel improvements.

Arnold

[TUHS] Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1858 bytes --]

👍

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 2:56 AM <arnold@skeeve.com> wrote:

> The "odd only" policy may be true, but it's not what I was told; I
> was told that the policy was to release externally one version behind
> what was being run internally.
>
That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as
commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7
commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as
PWB 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the next
version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.




> With the consent decree done and Divestiture in the works, AT&T was
> going to be allowed get into the computer business.

Exactly, and Charlie Brown wanted to compete with IBM in particular—which
was an issue—by the time of Judge Green, the microprocessor-based
workstations had started to make huge inroads against the mini-computers.
AT&T management (Brown *et al*), still equated the "computer business" with
mainframes running Wall Street.



> So at some point, someone decided that for System V, the current system
> would be released externally.
>
Right—that would have had to have been someone(s) in AT&T UNIX marketing in
North Carolina—the folks that gave us the "*Consider it Standard*" campaign.


> I doubt we'll ever know the exact truth.
>
I agree.  I take a WAG, though.   I >>suspect<< it was linked to the
attempt to sell the 3B20S against the DEC Vax family and the then IBM model
140 (which was the "minicomputer" size IBM mainframe system).   By that
time, System V was the OS Summit had supplied for it. If there were going
to be in the commercial hardware business, the OS SW had to match what the
HW used.

Clem

ᐧ
ᐧ

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4421 bytes --]

[TUHS] Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Al Kossow]

On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:

> That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7 commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as PWB 
> 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the next version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.

Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx and Plexus at
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long time ago someone who worked at Fortune
told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine licensing with
AT&T

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3119 bytes --]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
>
> > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as
> commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7
> commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as
> PWB
> > 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the next
> version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.
>
> Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
>
Not to my knowledge -- I probably know much/most of it as I lived it as
part of a couple of the negotiation teams.

The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx
> and Plexus at
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long time ago someone who
> worked at Fortune
> told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine
> licensing with AT&T
>
Hmm, I'm not sure —but I don't think it is wholly clear—although Onyx was
early and certainly would have been a part.  They were not the only firm
that wanted redistribution rights.

Numerous vendors asked for the V7 redistribution license, with HP (Fred
Clegg), Microsoft (Bob Greenberg/Bill Gates), and Tektronix (me) being
three, I am aware. It is quite possible Onyx signed the original V7 license
first, but I know there was great unhappiness with the terms that AT&T
initially set up. When the folks from AT&T Patents and Licensing (Al Arms
at that point) talked to us individually, it was sort of "this is what we
are offering"  - mind you, this all started >>pre-Judge Green<< and the
concept of negotiation was somewhat one-sided as AT&T was not allowed in
the computer business.

There was also a bit of gnashing of teeth as PWB 2.0 was not on the price
list.  At the time, Al's position was they could license the research, but
since AT&T was not in the commercial computer business, anything done for
the operation companies *(i.e.*, USG output) was not allowed to be
discussed.

The desire to redistribute UNIX (particularly on microprocessors) came up
at one of the earlier Asilomar Microprocessor workshops (which just held
its 50th in April, BTW).    Prof Dennis Allison of Stanford was consulting
for most of us at the time and recognized we had a common problem.  He set
up a meeting for the approx 10 firms, introduced us, and left us alone.
Thus began the meetings at Ricky's Hyatt (of which I was a part).  This all
*eventually* begat the replacement license for what would be PWB 3.0.

I've mentioned those meetings a few times in this forum. As I said, it was
the only time I was ever in a small meeting with Gates. When we were
discussing the price for binary copies, starting at $5K and getting down to
$1K seemed reasonable for a $25K-$125K computer, which was most of our
price points.   Microsoft wanted to pay $25/copy.   He said to the rest of
us, "You guys don't get it. *The only thing that matters is volume*."

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4920 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 9:00 AM, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7 commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as PWB
> > 3.) during the negociations Summit had already moved on to the next version - PWB 4.0. IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.
> 
> 
> Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx and Plexus at
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long time ago someone who worked at Fortune
> told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine licensing with
> AT&T

I've got a stack of license specimens as well as a bit of correspondence between
MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Raytheon, and Western Electric discussing UNIX licenses
for single CPUs.  The correspondence (circa 1980) concerns V7 licenses for a
PDP-11/44 (MIT LL) and PDP-11/45 (Raytheon).  The license specimens are in two
groups, one set that has blanks and/or generic language describing
"Licensed Software" and a second set specifically issued for UNIX System III.

The licenses have document codes:

- Software-Corp.-020173-020182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank>
- Software-Customer CPU-052776-090180-2 - Customer CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Time Sharing-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Time Sharing) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Customer CPU-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer CPU) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Cust. Spec.-020181-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Software, Specified Number of Users) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Cont. CPU-060181-1 - Contractor CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
- Sys. III-Corp.-110181-040182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III
- Sys. III-Cust.-010182-041582-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Provisions) between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III

Would scans of these documents help?  The licenses at least should be fine as they're specimen copies with no PII.  Regarding the correspondence, there is one letter on DARPA letterhead (from MIT LL to WECo), two on WECo letterhead (one back to MIT LL, the other to Raytheon) and then one on AT&T letterhead responding generically to an uinquiry regarding UNIX System III licensing.  Does anyone foresee issues with scanning the correspondence, or is that the sort of thing that might get me shipped off to some black site?

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Jacobson, Doug W [E CPE]]

I have an original signed copy of:
V6 Mini Unix "Software-Univ 020173-020179-2"  (Feb 1, 1980) Licensed to a single CPU PDP 11/34 S# AG 00720
V7 Unix "software-Univ 020173-090178-7" (Feb 1, 1980) Licensed to a single CPU PDP 11/34 S# AG 00720 (same machine)
UNIX/32V Version 1.0 "Software-UNIV 020173-090178-7 (Feb 1, 1980) Licensed to a single CPU VAX 11/780 S# 780675580

A copy of a signed agreement for
V7 Unix "software-Univ 020173-120176-5" (March 1, 1977) Licensed to a single CPU PDP 11/34 S# AG 00720 (same machine)

I also have various other agreement (SYS V (Version 2 and 3) and several software packages (like troff)

Doug


-----Original Message-----
From: segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, June 19, 2024 2:11 PM
To: tuhs@tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 9:00 AM, Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7 
> > commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew 
> > it as PWB
> > 3.) during the negociations Summit had already moved on to the next version - PWB 4.0. IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.
> 
> 
> Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of 
> Onyx and Plexus at http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long 
> time ago someone who worked at Fortune told me we can all thank Onyx 
> in 1980 for working out the single machine licensing with AT&T

I've got a stack of license specimens as well as a bit of correspondence between MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Raytheon, and Western Electric discussing UNIX licenses for single CPUs.  The correspondence (circa 1980) concerns V7 licenses for a
PDP-11/44 (MIT LL) and PDP-11/45 (Raytheon).  The license specimens are in two groups, one set that has blanks and/or generic language describing "Licensed Software" and a second set specifically issued for UNIX System III.

The licenses have document codes:

- Software-Corp.-020173-020182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank>
- Software-Customer CPU-052776-090180-2 - Customer CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Time Sharing-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Time Sharing) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Customer CPU-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer CPU) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Supp. Ag.-Cust. Spec.-020181-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Software, Specified Number of Users) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
- Cont. CPU-060181-1 - Contractor CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
- Sys. III-Corp.-110181-040182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III
- Sys. III-Cust.-010182-041582-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Provisions) between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III

Would scans of these documents help?  The licenses at least should be fine as they're specimen copies with no PII.  Regarding the correspondence, there is one letter on DARPA letterhead (from MIT LL to WECo), two on WECo letterhead (one back to MIT LL, the other to Raytheon) and then one on AT&T letterhead responding generically to an uinquiry regarding UNIX System III licensing.  Does anyone foresee issues with scanning the correspondence, or is that the sort of thing that might get me shipped off to some black site?

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[segaloco via TUHS]

On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 12:10 PM, segaloco via TUHS <tuhs@tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Wednesday, June 19th, 2024 at 9:00 AM, Al Kossow aek@bitsavers.org wrote:
> 
> > On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> > 
> > > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> > > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7 commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as PWB
> > > 3.) during the negociations Summit had already moved on to the next version - PWB 4.0. IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.
> > 
> > Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> > The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx and Plexus at
> > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long time ago someone who worked at Fortune
> > told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine licensing with
> > AT&T
> 
> 
> I've got a stack of license specimens as well as a bit of correspondence between
> MIT Lincoln Laboratory, Raytheon, and Western Electric discussing UNIX licenses
> for single CPUs. The correspondence (circa 1980) concerns V7 licenses for a
> PDP-11/44 (MIT LL) and PDP-11/45 (Raytheon). The license specimens are in two
> groups, one set that has blanks and/or generic language describing
> "Licensed Software" and a second set specifically issued for UNIX System III.
> 
> The licenses have document codes:
> 
> - Software-Corp.-020173-020182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank>
> 
> - Software-Customer CPU-052776-090180-2 - Customer CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
> 
> - Supp. Ag.-Time Sharing-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Time Sharing) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
> 
> - Supp. Ag.-Customer CPU-020178-010180-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer CPU) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
> 
> - Supp. Ag.-Cust. Spec.-020181-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Software, Specified Number of Users) between Western Electric Company, Incorporated and <Blank>
> 
> - Cont. CPU-060181-1 - Contractor CPU Agreement between <Blank> and <Blank>
> 
> - Sys. III-Corp.-110181-040182-2 - Software Agreement between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III
> 
> - Sys. III-Cust.-010182-041582-2 - Supplemental Agreement (Customer Provisions) between AT&T and <Blank> for UNIX System III
> 
> 
> Would scans of these documents help? The licenses at least should be fine as they're specimen copies with no PII. Regarding the correspondence, there is one letter on DARPA letterhead (from MIT LL to WECo), two on WECo letterhead (one back to MIT LL, the other to Raytheon) and then one on AT&T letterhead responding generically to an uinquiry regarding UNIX System III licensing. Does anyone foresee issues with scanning the correspondence, or is that the sort of thing that might get me shipped off to some black site?
> 
> - Matt G.

And now these are up here: https://archive.org/details/att_unix_licenses_1982

Included is misc.pdf, which is the couple letters as well as a packing slip from Bell Laboratories for a shipment of V7.  Also a revision to my last listing of their document codes, the "-2" on the end is a page number...whoops...the document names in the archive posting reflect the document codes sans this oversight.  I labeled the posting 1982 as that's the date on the latest of the license specimens, the letters were in the same batch of documents but not adjacent.

- Matt G.

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Al Kossow]

On 6/19/24 9:44 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org <mailto:aek@bitsavers.org>> wrote:
> 
>     On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> 
>      > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
>      > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7 commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it
>     as PWB
>      > 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the next version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that
>     process again.
> 
>     Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> 
> Not to my knowledge -- I probably know much/most of it as I lived it as part of a couple of the negotiation teams.
> 
>     The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx and Plexus at
>     http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history <http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history> and a long time ago someone who worked at Fortune
>     told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine licensing withAT&T
> 
> Hmm, I'm not sure —but I don't think it is wholly clear—although Onyx was early and certainly would have been a part. They were not the only 
> firm that wanted redistribution rights.
> 
> Numerous vendors asked for the V7 redistribution license, with HP (Fred Clegg), Microsoft (Bob Greenberg/Bill Gates), and Tektronix (me) 
> being three, I am aware. It is quite possible Onyx signed the original V7 license first, but I know there was great unhappiness with the 
> terms that AT&T initially set up. When the folks from AT&T Patents and Licensing (Al Arms at that point) talked to us individually, it was 
> sort of "this is what we are offering"  - mind you, this all started >>pre-Judge Green<< and the concept of negotiation was 
> somewhat one-sided as AT&T was not allowed in the computer business.
> 

An interview with Bob Marsh where he claims Onyx had the first license in Nov 1979 (pg 40)
http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history/Bob_Marsh_Interview_198412.pdf

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Clem Cole]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3244 bytes --]

The article says is *"REVIEW: Was Onyx the first UNIX vendor on micro
hardware? MARSH: I think so. I signed the distribution license in November
of 1979."*

By then, Al Arms (who ran Patent and Licensing of UNIX for AT&T) knew
numerous of the commercial licensees wanted something better than the
current "second CPU" license, plus many wanted binary redistribution
rights.  As I said, it is quite possible that Onyx signed the original V7
redistribution license first, but it was offered to many of us.  I also
pointed out that many of us pushed back and that there was
great unhappiness with the terms that AT&T had offered.  This is why we got
together as a group to negotiate something. - which would later become the
System III license.   This contrasts with Al and the team coming up with
something like they did with the V7 redistribution license.

ᐧ

On Wed, Jun 26, 2024 at 4:42 AM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:

> On 6/19/24 9:44 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org <mailto:
> aek@bitsavers.org>> wrote:
> >
> >     On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> >
> >      > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as
> commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> >      > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7
> commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it
> >     as PWB
> >      > 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the
> next version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that
> >     process again.
> >
> >     Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> >
> > Not to my knowledge -- I probably know much/most of it as I lived it as
> part of a couple of the negotiation teams.
> >
> >     The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history
> of Onyx and Plexus at
> >     http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history <
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history> and a long time ago someone who
> worked at Fortune
> >     told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single
> machine licensing withAT&T
> >
> > Hmm, I'm not sure —but I don't think it is wholly clear—although Onyx
> was early and certainly would have been a part. They were not the only
> > firm that wanted redistribution rights.
> >
> > Numerous vendors asked for the V7 redistribution license, with HP (Fred
> Clegg), Microsoft (Bob Greenberg/Bill Gates), and Tektronix (me)
> > being three, I am aware. It is quite possible Onyx signed the original
> V7 license first, but I know there was great unhappiness with the
> > terms that AT&T initially set up. When the folks from AT&T Patents and
> Licensing (Al Arms at that point) talked to us individually, it was
> > sort of "this is what we are offering"  - mind you, this all started
> >>pre-Judge Green<< and the concept of negotiation was
> > somewhat one-sided as AT&T was not allowed in the computer business.
> >
>
> An interview with Bob Marsh where he claims Onyx had the first license in
> Nov 1979 (pg 40)
> http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history/Bob_Marsh_Interview_198412.pdf
>
>
>
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5185 bytes --]

[TUHS] Re: Unix single-machine licensing (was Re: Re: ACM Software System Award to Andrew S. Tanenbaum for MINIX)

[Jonathan Gray]

On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:44:53PM -0400, Clem Cole wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 19, 2024 at 12:00 PM Al Kossow <aek@bitsavers.org> wrote:
> 
> > On 6/19/24 8:47 AM, Clem Cole wrote:
> >
> > > That's how I remember Otis Wilson explaining it to us as
> > commercial licensees at a licensing meeting in the early 1980s.
> > > We had finally completed the PWB 3.0 license to replace the V7
> > commercial license (AT&T would rename this System III - but we knew it as
> > PWB
> > > 3.) during the negociations   Summit had already moved on to the next
> > version - PWB 4.0.  IMO: Otis was not ready to start that process again.
> >
> > Is the really early history of Unix licensing documented anywhere?
> >
> Not to my knowledge -- I probably know much/most of it as I lived it as
> part of a couple of the negotiation teams.
> 
> The work on reviving a Plexus P20 prompted me to put up the history of Onyx
> > and Plexus at
> > http://bitsavers.org/pdf/plexus/history and a long time ago someone who
> > worked at Fortune
> > told me we can all thank Onyx in 1980 for working out the single machine
> > licensing with AT&T
> >
> Hmm, I'm not sure —but I don't think it is wholly clear—although Onyx was
> early and certainly would have been a part.  They were not the only firm
> that wanted redistribution rights.
> 
> Numerous vendors asked for the V7 redistribution license, with HP (Fred
> Clegg), Microsoft (Bob Greenberg/Bill Gates), and Tektronix (me) being
> three, I am aware. It is quite possible Onyx signed the original V7 license
> first, but I know there was great unhappiness with the terms that AT&T
> initially set up. When the folks from AT&T Patents and Licensing (Al Arms
> at that point) talked to us individually, it was sort of "this is what we
> are offering"  - mind you, this all started >>pre-Judge Green<< and the
> concept of negotiation was somewhat one-sided as AT&T was not allowed in
> the computer business.
> 
> There was also a bit of gnashing of teeth as PWB 2.0 was not on the price
> list.  At the time, Al's position was they could license the research, but
> since AT&T was not in the commercial computer business, anything done for
> the operation companies *(i.e.*, USG output) was not allowed to be
> discussed.
> 
> The desire to redistribute UNIX (particularly on microprocessors) came up
> at one of the earlier Asilomar Microprocessor workshops (which just held
> its 50th in April, BTW).    Prof Dennis Allison of Stanford was consulting
> for most of us at the time and recognized we had a common problem.  He set
> up a meeting for the approx 10 firms, introduced us, and left us alone.
> Thus began the meetings at Ricky's Hyatt (of which I was a part).  This all
> *eventually* begat the replacement license for what would be PWB 3.0.
> 
> I've mentioned those meetings a few times in this forum. As I said, it was
> the only time I was ever in a small meeting with Gates. When we were
> discussing the price for binary copies, starting at $5K and getting down to
> $1K seemed reasonable for a $25K-$125K computer, which was most of our
> price points.   Microsoft wanted to pay $25/copy.   He said to the rest of
> us, "You guys don't get it. *The only thing that matters is volume*."

The license changes were later announced at the first /usr/group meeting?

"Dennis Allison of Stanford, California is organizing a commercial UNIX
users group. The group is called /usr/group.
...
A meeting of the group was held on 17 October 1980 in Palo Alto."
;login:, vol 5, no 8, october 1980, p 9
https://archive.org/details/login_october-1980/page/9/mode/2up

A longer writeup in InfoWorld details Larry Isley's presentation of
volume based sub-licensing and mentions Onyx.

UNIX Users Unite, by Mokurai Cherlin
InfoWorld, vol 2, no 22, december 1980, pp 24-25
https://books.google.com/books?id=mD4EAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT23