From lorddoomicus at mac.com  Mon Nov 27 09:13:48 2006
From: lorddoomicus at mac.com (Lord Doomicus)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:13:48 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
Message-ID: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>

Since SGI is EOL'ing IRIX at the end of the year, has anyone asked  
them if they would donate it's source ( under some sort of OSI  
license of course ) to the UNIX archive?

Or is there too much SysV code in it?

It would be cool to have easy access to the older IRIX versions for  
older SGI hardware.

- Derrik

Derrik Walker v2.0, RHCE
lorddoomicus at mac.com
http://www.doomd.net

...  I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-3  
supercomputer.  -- Seymour Cray, 1986


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://minnie.tuhs.org/pipermail/tuhs/attachments/20061126/bf20c893/attachment.html>

From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Mon Nov 27 09:46:20 2006
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Sun, 26 Nov 2006 18:46:20 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0611261546oc61764n4620d90a87dbcb70@mail.gmail.com>

That would be pretty cool, but frankly the IRIX kernel is unneccsary.
A bettter thing to do would be to contribute the stuff like the IRIX
GUI and the like.

Mike

On 11/26/06, Lord Doomicus <lorddoomicus at mac.com> wrote:
> Since SGI is EOL'ing IRIX at the end of the year, has anyone asked them if
> they would donate it's source ( under some sort of OSI license of course )
> to the UNIX archive?
>
> Or is there too much SysV code in it?
>
> It would be cool to have easy access to the older IRIX versions for older
> SGI hardware.
>
>
> - Derrik
>
> Derrik Walker v2.0, RHCE
> lorddoomicus at mac.com
> http://www.doomd.net
>
> ...  I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-3 supercomputer.  --
> Seymour Cray, 1986
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
>


From dubhthach at compsoc.nuigalway.ie  Mon Nov 27 13:34:59 2006
From: dubhthach at compsoc.nuigalway.ie (Paul Duffy)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 03:34:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>

Highly unlikely. After all they didn't buy out their Unix license like Sun 
did. IRIX has been basically abandoned by SGI which is a pity. However 
their is quite an IRIX user community at Nekochan with 1500 members on the 
forums: http://forums.nekochan.net/index.php

Nekoware as it called is probably the best repositry of 
freeware/opensource software out their for IRIX these days. Even SGI's own 
freeware site points to them.

-Paul

"There is no greater sorrow then to remember times of happiness when
miserable" -- Dante "The Inferno"

On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Lord Doomicus wrote:

> Since SGI is EOL'ing IRIX at the end of the year, has anyone asked them if 
> they would donate it's source ( under some sort of OSI license of course ) to 
> the UNIX archive?
>
> Or is there too much SysV code in it?
>
> It would be cool to have easy access to the older IRIX versions for older SGI 
> hardware.
>
> - Derrik
>
> Derrik Walker v2.0, RHCE
> lorddoomicus at mac.com
> http://www.doomd.net
>
> ...  I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-3 supercomputer.  -- 
> Seymour Cray, 1986
>
>


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 00:41:37 2006
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Mon, 27 Nov 2006 09:41:37 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>

As I said, IRIX itself is nothing but an obsolete kernel. It might be
cool for preservation purposes to have the code (and that's what TUHS
is all about) but as a practical solution, I'm not really sure. SGI
has already opened up a lot of their best stuff (XFS, OpenGL, Inventor
(a sinfully under-used high level layer on top of OpenGL) The main
thing they haven't opened up is their Desktop. It's really a far
superior Motif-based system than CDE (the look, for example is so
well-modified that it doesn't even have that archaic Motif-y look) and
an open source version of the IRIX desktop layered on top of Linux (or
*BSD) would really go a long way towards producing a usable AND
attractive Unix-like for lower-end systems.

Any idea of the odds of at least the IRIX Desktop being opened up?

On 11/26/06, Paul Duffy <dubhthach at compsoc.nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> Highly unlikely. After all they didn't buy out their Unix license like Sun
> did. IRIX has been basically abandoned by SGI which is a pity. However
> their is quite an IRIX user community at Nekochan with 1500 members on the
> forums: http://forums.nekochan.net/index.php
>
> Nekoware as it called is probably the best repositry of
> freeware/opensource software out their for IRIX these days. Even SGI's own
> freeware site points to them.
>
> -Paul
>
> "There is no greater sorrow then to remember times of happiness when
> miserable" -- Dante "The Inferno"
>
> On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Lord Doomicus wrote:
>
> > Since SGI is EOL'ing IRIX at the end of the year, has anyone asked them if
> > they would donate it's source ( under some sort of OSI license of course ) to
> > the UNIX archive?
> >
> > Or is there too much SysV code in it?
> >
> > It would be cool to have easy access to the older IRIX versions for older SGI
> > hardware.
> >
> > - Derrik
> >
> > Derrik Walker v2.0, RHCE
> > lorddoomicus at mac.com
> > http://www.doomd.net
> >
> > ...  I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-3 supercomputer.  --
> > Seymour Cray, 1986
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Tue Nov 28 17:12:58 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:12:58 +1300
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
	<8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <200611282012.58681.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

On Tuesday 28 November 2006 03:41, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> As I said, IRIX itself is nothing but an obsolete kernel. It might be
> cool for preservation purposes to have the code (and that's what TUHS
> is all about) 
<snip> 

And that's what I for one want to see.  The more Un*x branches we have in 
preservation for study purposes, the less chance a software pirate like The 
Societe Commercial du Ondit (The Rumormongers Company) Group has of 
succeeding in meritless law suits.

I think someone should ask Novell to consider declaring the Un*x SySVRx source 
tree available under the GPL or some such license.  And releasing OSF/1 and 
such SVRx derivatives from requiring a Un*x source code license, if they want 
to release their ancient source trees for preservation purposes.

It would be a fitting end to the AT&T Un*x role in computer science history.

Wesley Parish
>
> On 11/26/06, Paul Duffy <dubhthach at compsoc.nuigalway.ie> wrote:
> > Highly unlikely. After all they didn't buy out their Unix license like
> > Sun did. IRIX has been basically abandoned by SGI which is a pity.
> > However their is quite an IRIX user community at Nekochan with 1500
> > members on the forums: http://forums.nekochan.net/index.php
> >
> > Nekoware as it called is probably the best repositry of
> > freeware/opensource software out their for IRIX these days. Even SGI's
> > own freeware site points to them.
> >
> > -Paul
> >
> > "There is no greater sorrow then to remember times of happiness when
> > miserable" -- Dante "The Inferno"
> >
> > On Sun, 26 Nov 2006, Lord Doomicus wrote:
> > > Since SGI is EOL'ing IRIX at the end of the year, has anyone asked them
> > > if they would donate it's source ( under some sort of OSI license of
> > > course ) to the UNIX archive?
> > >
> > > Or is there too much SysV code in it?
> > >
> > > It would be cool to have easy access to the older IRIX versions for
> > > older SGI hardware.
> > >
> > > - Derrik
> > >
> > > Derrik Walker v2.0, RHCE
> > > lorddoomicus at mac.com
> > > http://www.doomd.net
> > >
> > > ...  I am using an Apple Macintosh to design the Cray-3 supercomputer. 
> > > -- Seymour Cray, 1986
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
> https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Tue Nov 28 23:17:43 2006
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:17:43 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <200611282012.58681.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
	<8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>
	<200611282012.58681.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>

That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V
and SCO is a M$-funded anti-open source crusader.

On 11/28/06, Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 November 2006 03:41, Michael Kerpan wrote:
> > As I said, IRIX itself is nothing but an obsolete kernel. It might be
> > cool for preservation purposes to have the code (and that's what TUHS
> > is all about)
> <snip>
>
> And that's what I for one want to see.  The more Un*x branches we have in
> preservation for study purposes, the less chance a software pirate like The
> Societe Commercial du Ondit (The Rumormongers Company) Group has of
> succeeding in meritless law suits.
>
> I think someone should ask Novell to consider declaring the Un*x SySVRx source
> tree available under the GPL or some such license.  And releasing OSF/1 and
> such SVRx derivatives from requiring a Un*x source code license, if they want
> to release their ancient source trees for preservation purposes.
>
> It would be a fitting end to the AT&T Un*x role in computer science history.
>
> Wesley Parish


From cowan at ccil.org  Tue Nov 28 23:41:20 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 08:41:20 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
	<8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>
	<200611282012.58681.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
	<8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20061128134120.GB15984@ccil.org>

Michael Kerpan scripsit:

> That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V

Novell claims otherwise, that SCO is not the copyright owner but
simply has a license to distribute.

-- 
That you can cover for the plentiful            John Cowan
and often gaping errors, misconstruals,         http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
and disinformation in your posts                cowan at ccil.org
through sheer volume -- that is another
misconception.  --Mike to Peter


From madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com  Wed Nov 29 02:57:55 2006
From: madcrow.maxwell at gmail.com (Michael Kerpan)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:57:55 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <8B9D43B4-BCF3-4768-98D3-E2D77248458E@vetsystems.com>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0611270332120.2479@riviera>
	<8dd2d95c0611270641v289bf26ag9bbd2b5310b9fc60@mail.gmail.com>
	<200611282012.58681.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
	<8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>
	<8B9D43B4-BCF3-4768-98D3-E2D77248458E@vetsystems.com>
Message-ID: <8dd2d95c0611280857i2dcda7b8gd23c213541e8c248@mail.gmail.com>

Caldera changed very drastically as a company at the time it changed
its name to SCO). Ancient Unix was opened up in January of 2002. In
June of that year, the CEO of Caldera was forcibly replaced with an
M$-backed anti-open source crusader. It was at that point that Caldera
stopped selling its Linux distro, changed its name to SCO and started
suing any company involved with Linux.
On 11/28/06, Robert Tillyard <rob at vetsystems.com> wrote:
>
> On 28 Nov 2006, at 13:17, Michael Kerpan wrote:
>
> > That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V
> > and SCO is a M$-funded anti-open source crusader.
>
> Didn't SCO open up the early UNIX versions on TUHS now? and I thought
> that previously Caldera had opened some old OSs like DR-DOS or CP-M.
>
> Regards, Rob.
>


From arnold at skeeve.com  Wed Nov 29 05:28:56 2006
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 21:28:56 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
Message-ID: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>

Hi. Has anyone managed to compile a version of the original BSD vi under
Linux?  I'm looking from something from the 4.3 to 4.4 vintage sources.

I made a stab at the Open Solaris version of vi, but could only get so
far.

Thanks,

Arnold Robbins


From gunnarr at acm.org  Wed Nov 29 05:37:46 2006
From: gunnarr at acm.org (Gunnar Ritter)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 20:37:46 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
In-Reply-To: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
References: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
Message-ID: <456c900a.jGGJ3E+L2npGBBfa%gunnarr@acm.org>

Aharon Robbins <arnold at skeeve.com> wrote:

> Hi. Has anyone managed to compile a version of the original BSD vi under
> Linux?  I'm looking from something from the 4.3 to 4.4 vintage sources.

<http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net/>

> I made a stab at the Open Solaris version of vi, but could only get so
> far.

I also have a Linux port of OpenSolaris vi, but it is
unreleased. The main issue is that it requires their
version of curses.

	Gunnar


From arnold at skeeve.com  Wed Nov 29 06:02:40 2006
From: arnold at skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 22:02:40 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
Message-ID: <200611282002.kASK2efE006051@skeeve.com>

> http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net

Thanks to both of the people who just replied with this answer!

I didn't know about this but will look at it ASAP.

Arnold


From lyndon at orthanc.ca  Wed Nov 29 05:42:24 2006
From: lyndon at orthanc.ca (Lyndon Nerenberg)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 11:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
In-Reply-To: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
References: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
Message-ID: <20061128114016.D1276@gollum.dev.gmi-mr.com>

> Hi. Has anyone managed to compile a version of the original BSD vi under
> Linux?  I'm looking from something from the 4.3 to 4.4 vintage sources.

Have you tried http://ex-vi.sourceforge.net ??  The README states:

  Welcome to the ex/vi port!
  ==========================

  This implementation is derived from ex/vi 3.7 of 6/7/85 and the BSD
  termcap library, originally from the 2.11BSD distribution. All of them
  were changed to compile and run on newer POSIX compatible Unix systems.
  Support for international character sets was added, including support
  for multibyte locales (based on UTF-8 or East Asian encodings), and some
  changes were made to get closer to the POSIX.2 guidelines for ex and
  vi. Some issues that were clearly bugs and not features have also been
  resolved; see the Changes file for details.

I haven't tried building it on Linux, but they claim wide platform 
portability


--lyndon

   [This firm] is the only company that's shipping end-user networking
   software that conforms to OSI standards. The OSI stamp is important
   because it assures corporate users that the networking software will
   easily connect to other vendors systems and software.
   			-- pyramid!csg via r.h.f.


From cowan at ccil.org  Wed Nov 29 06:22:15 2006
From: cowan at ccil.org (John Cowan)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 15:22:15 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
In-Reply-To: <20061128114016.D1276@gollum.dev.gmi-mr.com>
References: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
	<20061128114016.D1276@gollum.dev.gmi-mr.com>
Message-ID: <20061128202215.GA2506@ccil.org>

Lyndon Nerenberg scripsit:

> I haven't tried building it on Linux, but they claim wide platform 
> portability

I can't say how it works as a 'vi', because I am an 'ex' troglodyte.
As an 'ex', it works fine under Linux (much better than 'vim' does), and
in fact I am editing this very reply with it.  The definition of INSTALL
in the Makefile (there is no configure script) is '/usr/ucb/install',
which needs to be changed to just 'install'.

It also builds and runs excellently under Cygwin with the above
change plus removing the 'size' command from the Makefile, which is
not necessary.

-- 
John Cowan  cowan at ccil.org  http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have seen farther than others, it is because I am surrounded by dwarves.
        --Murray Gell-Mann


From lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx  Wed Nov 29 05:52:42 2006
From: lyricalnanoha at dosius.ath.cx (Lyrical Nanoha)
Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:52:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [TUHS] original vi under Linux?
In-Reply-To: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
References: <200611281928.kASJSu12005104@skeeve.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0611281452010.9896@dosius.ath.cx>

On Tue, 28 Nov 2006, Aharon Robbins wrote:

> Hi. Has anyone managed to compile a version of the original BSD vi under
> Linux?  I'm looking from something from the 4.3 to 4.4 vintage sources.
>
> I made a stab at the Open Solaris version of vi, but could only get so
> far.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Arnold Robbins

http://ex-vi.sf.net

-uso.


From wes.parish at paradise.net.nz  Wed Nov 29 17:04:10 2006
From: wes.parish at paradise.net.nz (Wesley Parish)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 20:04:10 +1300
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <20061128134120.GB15984@ccil.org>
References: <57FF0370-6EC5-4282-BCB2-06DD34C3C2B1@mac.com>
	<8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061128134120.GB15984@ccil.org>
Message-ID: <200611292004.11077.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>

I would say that since the copyrights on the Santa Cruz Operation Unixware 
2.1.3 man pages are Novell's, that Novell actually has the copyrights.  Doing 
man pages seems to be the role of the source code maintainer.  Ergo, they 
didn't sell the copyrights, they sold a business opportunity.

groklaw.net has most of the info and analysis.

Wesley Parish

On Wednesday 29 November 2006 02:41, John Cowan wrote:
> Michael Kerpan scripsit:
> > That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V
>
> Novell claims otherwise, that SCO is not the copyright owner but
> simply has a license to distribute.

-- 
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
You ask, what is the most important thing?
Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.


From imp at bsdimp.com  Wed Nov 29 17:14:51 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 00:14:51 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [TUHS] Open Sourcing IRIX?
In-Reply-To: <200611292004.11077.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
References: <8dd2d95c0611280517y7644e8f5x9249b1861be6a161@mail.gmail.com>
	<20061128134120.GB15984@ccil.org>
	<200611292004.11077.wes.parish@paradise.net.nz>
Message-ID: <20061129.001451.-1827343420.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <200611292004.11077.wes.parish at paradise.net.nz>
            Wesley Parish <wes.parish at paradise.net.nz> writes:
: I would say that since the copyrights on the Santa Cruz Operation
: Unixware 2.1.3 man pages are Novell's, that Novell actually has the
: copyrights.  Doing man pages seems to be the role of the source code
: maintainer.  Ergo, they didn't sell the copyrights, they sold a
: business opportunity.

Copyright notices don't tell the whole story.  They aren't required
for new code (and Sys V is mostly new enough, unlike Unix V32) after
the Berne enabling legislation.  And when they are transferred, the
old references aren't magically altered.

: groklaw.net has most of the info and analysis.

However, in this case, the bulk of the evidence is that Novell
retained the copyrights.  To transfer a copyright, one must
do so specifically, explicitly and in writing.  At best there's an
implication that Novell is obligated to transfer the copyright, but
even that's a stretch.

Warner

: Wesley Parish
: 
: On Wednesday 29 November 2006 02:41, John Cowan wrote:
: > Michael Kerpan scripsit:
: > > That would never happen as it's SCO, not Novell, that owns System V
: >
: > Novell claims otherwise, that SCO is not the copyright owner but
: > simply has a license to distribute.
: 
: -- 
: Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
: -----
: Mau e ki, he aha te mea nui?
: You ask, what is the most important thing?
: Maku e ki, he tangata, he tangata, he tangata.
: I reply, it is people, it is people, it is people.
: _______________________________________________
: TUHS mailing list
: TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
: https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
: 
: 


From lm at bitmover.com  Thu Nov 30 12:26:44 2006
From: lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 18:26:44 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1164852001.45846.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <mailman.3.1164852001.45846.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20061130022644.GA31524@bitmover.com>

> for new code (and Sys V is mostly new enough, unlike Unix V32) after

Hmm.  I'm coming into this late so maybe I'm not seeing the full context.
If the statement is that V32 != Sys V I have to disagree, I've read all
of 32V source (kernel and user and I mean all of it.  It's not like I
had deep understanding of every line but my eyes have seen every line 
of code in 32V, it's not that big).  I've also read large chunks of 
Sys V - not all of it, but depending on the release, fairly large
chunks, like 80% or more.

The idea that most stuff was rewritten in Sys V is not true, not even
slightly true.  I dunno if that is what is being claimed but if it is
that's silly.  Most of the stuff is the same, especially in userspace
but also in the kernel, tons of the kernel is unchanged.
-- 
---
Larry McVoy                lm at bitmover.com           http://www.bitkeeper.com


From imp at bsdimp.com  Thu Nov 30 15:53:44 2006
From: imp at bsdimp.com (M. Warner Losh)
Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2006 22:53:44 -0700 (MST)
Subject: [TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4
In-Reply-To: <20061130022644.GA31524@bitmover.com>
References: <mailman.3.1164852001.45846.tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org>
	<20061130022644.GA31524@bitmover.com>
Message-ID: <20061129.225344.-432836995.imp@bsdimp.com>

In message: <20061130022644.GA31524 at bitmover.com>
            lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) writes:
: > for new code (and Sys V is mostly new enough, unlike Unix V32) after
: 
: Hmm.  I'm coming into this late so maybe I'm not seeing the full context.
: If the statement is that V32 != Sys V I have to disagree, I've read all
: of 32V source (kernel and user and I mean all of it.  It's not like I
: had deep understanding of every line but my eyes have seen every line 
: of code in 32V, it's not that big).  I've also read large chunks of 
: Sys V - not all of it, but depending on the release, fairly large
: chunks, like 80% or more.

One of the preliminary rulings in the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit was that
there was extreme doubt as to whether or not there was a copyright on
32V Unix.  It was widely distributed without copyright notices before
the Berne Convention did way with the need to have copyright notices
to protect the copyright of a work.  Since there was nothing done to
protect or recall the copies without the copyright notice, under the
law at that time the copyright would have been lost.  I'm equivocating
here because there never was a final ruling.  The case was settled
before that happened, with many speculating that the main reason for
settlement was this ruling.

: The idea that most stuff was rewritten in Sys V is not true, not even
: slightly true.  I dunno if that is what is being claimed but if it is
: that's silly.  Most of the stuff is the same, especially in userspace
: but also in the kernel, tons of the kernel is unchanged.

That never was the claim.

Warner


