TUHS

tuhs@tuhs.org

5 participants
6532 discussions

Re: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Norman Wilson

Kenneth Stailey: Two words: "version control". If the code that SCO purports is copied into Linux is known the version control archives will say who inserted it. It will be very easy to prove if Caldera inserted the code themselves. Alas, two more words: "read-write storage." Version control info is stored in a file; how do we know (as SCalderaO might argue) that some hacker hasn't edited it after the fact to pretend something was put in by Caldera, or that they just lied about it to begin with? Version control data might be a useful, but I suspect only as a trail to specific people whose could then offer personal testimony about the history of a particular piece of code. The testimony would be harder to impeach than the code. Even a read-only copy of the version control info, e.g. a CD-ROM, isn't a lot more solid; some hard evidence would be needed of when that CD-ROM was written, beyond the easily-forged timestamps on the disc itself, and there could still be a claim that someone just lied when writing it, especially if there is a claim that malice was involved. So it still would probably come down to personal testimony. The usual disclaimer applies: I'm no lawyer. I'm just trying to think of counter-arguments, both those reasonable in abstract and those that seem to fit within the spirit of the complaint against IBM. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years

IBM doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat

by Kenneth Stailey

http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030606S0039 Linux-Unix ties spelled out By Charles J. Murray EE Times June 6, 2003 (5:08 p.m. ET) PARK RIDGE, Ill. � SCO Group revealed the foundation of its legal battle with the Linux community, when it rolled out evidence of large blocks of Linux code that it contends were stolen from Unix. Analysts who saw the samples of the allegedly stolen code said the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a formidable legal case. �If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be very concerned,� said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston). If SCO (Lindon, Utah) prevails in its legal efforts, many observers believe the action could, at best, result in hundreds of multimillion-dollar licensing payments from Fortune 1000 companies and, at worst, damage the foundation of open-source software. The revelations by the SCO Group Wednesday (June 4) followed a turbulent week in which the company exchanged both allegations and counterallegations with Linux supporters and with Novell Inc. (Provo, Utah), which has proclaimed in an open letter that SCO doesn't own the copyrights and patents to Unix, the operating system Novell sold to SCO in 1995. SCO's revelations also served as a response to the Linux community, which has complained over the past two months that it doubted SCO's contentions of theft because the company had not publicly disclosed evidence to support its claims. Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar. The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of identical code, along with identical developers' comments. �One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints, for a particular piece of source code,� said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence. �It's very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,� Claybrook said. DiDio and Claybrook said they were given side-by-side copies of Unix and Linux code to compare. Neither was paid for the work, and both agreed that the evidence suggests SCO has a strong case in its $1 billion suit against IBM Corp. and in its scrap with the Linux community. Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence. �Can SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to SCO?� asked Jon �Maddog� Hall, executive director of Linux International (Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. �Or did the code that's in SCO Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,� he said. SCO's battle with the open-source community grabbed headlines two months ago when it filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the state court of Utah against IBM, alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition in the Linux market. In May, on the heels of that suit, SCO sent letters to Fortune 1,000 companies and 500 other businesses advising them to seek legal counsel if they use Linux. SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home phone numbers and addresses on Web sites. On May 28, Novell jumped into the fray, arguing that it never sold the Unix copyrights or patents to SCO when it consummated the Unix sale in 1995. In an open letter to SCO, Novell said, �Apparently you share this view, since over the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights to SCO, requests Novell has rejected.� Novell assailed In a subsequent news conference on May 30, SCO chief executive officer Darl McBride lashed out at Novell, restating SCO's claim that it owns the Unix operating system patents and implying that Novell has a hidden agenda for insisting otherwise. �We strongly disagree with Novell's position and view it as a desperate measure to curry favor with the Linux community,� McBride said. Last week's analyst revelations, however, cast the battle in a new light. Until the analysts weighed in, Linux backers had relied on the defense that no one had seen proof of the allegations. Most said they didn't understand why SCO had refused to release the alleged infringements for public scrutiny. Some said they viewed SCO's actions as a means to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt about open-source software. But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. �SCO is not trying to destroy Linux,� said DiDio of the Yankee Group. �That's silly. This is about paying royalties.� SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 (sic) software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year. Because it believes Linux incorporates code that's been �stolen� from Unix, it has warned hundreds of companies to stop using Linux or start paying royalties. �SCO's words were that Linux distributors and others who are using Linux are 'distributing stolen goods,' � said Claybrook of Aberdeen Group. Some companies, such as Sun Microsystems Inc., already pay hefty royalties to SCO for Unix. Two weeks ago, Microsoft Corp. joined that group when it agreed to pay royalties that were said to be �significantly in excess of $10 million,� one source said. Microsoft declined to comment on the details. Facing a choice Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election vote-counting scandal. Analysts said IBM will be the first company to face a choice in the legal matter. �If IBM wants to cure this problem, they could start by buying all the appropriate licenses and then paying SCO a billion dollars,� Claybrook said. �But SCO now says that a billion may not be enough to cover their damages.� Users of Linux also face a decision about whether to ignore SCO's letters or pay for a license. Analysts said companies may face that decision as soon as June 13, the date on which SCO has threatened to terminate its existing Unix contracts with IBM. Intellectual-property attorneys advise that companies that received a letter from SCO first determine whether IBM is indemnifying them, as users, against legal action. IBM, for its part, has said it doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat. �We believe our contact is perpetual and irrevocable,� an IBM spokeswoman said. �We've already paid for it, and there is nothing else we need to do.� Whether the legal actions will harm Linux in the long run is still open to question, experts said. The Linux community, unconvinced by SCO's actions, says it is still waiting for more solid proof that SCO really has a case. Most say that showing the alleged violations to a few analysts who sign nondisclosure agreements isn't enough. �We still don't see the need for secrecy,� said Hall of Linux International. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

22 years

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Aharon Robbins

What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given this book: The Design of the UNIX Operating System, Maurice J. Bach. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. ISBN 0-13-201799-7. There's also these: The Magic Garden Explained: The Internals of Unix System V Release 4: An Open Systems Design, Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994. ISBN 0-13-098138-9. Unix Internals: The New Frontiers, Uresh Vahalia. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996. ISBN 0-13-101908-2. According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005. The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't contain actual source code, but let's get real here... Arnold

22 years

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Aharon Robbins

> add on the lion book Yes, that's been officially published, as well as in N-th generation photo copies. But the books I cited are for System V, including SVR4, which is much more relevant for the issue under discussion... Pfui. What a mess this whole business is. Arnold

22 years

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by zmkm zmkm

add on the lion book >From: Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com> >To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org >Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate >Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:56:08 +0300 > >What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone >can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given >this book: > > The Design of the UNIX Operating System, > Maurice J. Bach. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986. > ISBN 0-13-201799-7. > >There's also these: > > The Magic Garden Explained: > The Internals of Unix System V Release 4: > An Open Systems Design, > Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994. > ISBN 0-13-098138-9. > > Unix Internals: The New Frontiers, > Uresh Vahalia. > Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996. > ISBN 0-13-101908-2. > According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005. > >The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T >didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in >print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't >contain actual source code, but let's get real here... > >Arnold >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

22 years

Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7

by zmkm zmkm

keneth thanks for the interesting infos , you solved a big puzzle for me :-) now I know why the screen is acting rather strange. ! cheers >From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com> >To: zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com> >Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 >Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 15:23:56 -0700 (PDT) > >Seveth Edition UNIX assumed hardcopy terminal and did not have a terminal >pager. > >Because of that assumption it also cannot backspace the way you would want >it >to on a CRT. > >Use "#" for backspace "@" for kill line (modern version is Ctrl-U). >Characters >will not be erased on screen but they will be discarded from the input >line. > >--- zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > Hi all > > > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 >? , > > like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . > > > > tks in advance for the infos. > > > > rgs to all > > zmkm > > > > _________________________________________________________________ > > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. > > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail > > > > _______________________________________________ > > TUHS mailing list > > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org > > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs > > >__________________________________ >Do you Yahoo!? >Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). >http://calendar.yahoo.com _________________________________________________________________ Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

22 years

Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7

by zmkm zmkm

Thanks guys , I think I am going to stick to bwc suggestion it looks suitable , I got the book and found it so Ill work on it asap. tks >From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu> >To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org >Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 >Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT) > > > Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:59:44 +1000 > > From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> > > To: The Unix Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> > > Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 > > > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:29:30PM +0000, zmkm zmkm wrote: > > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on >unix7 ? > > > , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . > > > > lp ? :-) > > Warren > >I think I remember being able to use the hardware Scroll Lock on a >VT05 terminal with some variety of Unix, perhaps late 6th Edition. > > carl >-- > carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego > clowenst(a)ucsd.edu >_______________________________________________ >TUHS mailing list >TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org >http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs _________________________________________________________________ MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE* http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

22 years

Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7

by Carl Lowenstein

> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:59:44 +1000 > From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org> > To: The Unix Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org> > Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7 > > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:29:30PM +0000, zmkm zmkm wrote: > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 ? > > , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . > > lp ? :-) > Warren I think I remember being able to use the hardware Scroll Lock on a VT05 terminal with some variety of Unix, perhaps late 6th Edition. carl -- carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego clowenst(a)ucsd.edu

22 years

a question re pdp11 unix7

by zmkm zmkm

Hi all just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 ? , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) . tks in advance for the infos. rgs to all zmkm _________________________________________________________________ Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*. http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

22 years

Re: [pups] Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al

by Al Kossow

I've located the SOLO RK05 disc image. I tested it with SIMH, and it appears to work. The command language is a bit opaque; it would be a great help if you could find out if they might still have the documentation, even if they didn't have the code itself. Hopefully, Bob Supnik can get permission to add this to the SIMH software archive. the image temporarily at www.spies.com/aek/solo.dsk --- LIST(CATALOG,ALL,CONSOLE) CONSOLE: SOLO SYSTEM FILES AUTOLOAD SCRATCH PROTECTED 1 PAGES BACKUP SEQCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES BACKUPMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES BACKUPTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 14 PAGES BUILDBATTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 1 PAGES BUILDTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 4 PAGES CARDS SEQCODE PROTECTED 5 PAGES CARDSMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES CARDSTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 12 PAGES CATALOG SCRATCH PROTECTED 15 PAGES CDISKTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 10 PAGES COMMANDS ASCII UNPROTECTED 1 PAGES CONSOLE SEQCODE PROTECTED 1 PAGES CONSOLEMAN ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES CONSOLETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 8 PAGES COPY SEQCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES COPYMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES COPYTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 12 PAGES CPASCAL SEQCODE PROTECTED 7 PAGES CPASCALMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES CPASCALTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 18 PAGES CPASS1 SEQCODE PROTECTED 20 PAGES CPASS1TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 54 PAGES CPASS2 SEQCODE PROTECTED 26 PAGES CPASS2TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 72 PAGES CPASS3 SEQCODE PROTECTED 35 PAGES CPASS3TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 90 PAGES CPASS4 SEQCODE PROTECTED 27 PAGES CPASS4TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 71 PAGES CPASS5 SEQCODE PROTECTED 20 PAGES CPASS5TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 56 PAGES CPASS6 SEQCODE PROTECTED 16 PAGES CPASS6TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 53 PAGES CPASS7 SEQCODE PROTECTED 18 PAGES CPASS7TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 56 PAGES CPTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 2 PAGES DISK SEQCODE PROTECTED 2 PAGES DISKMAN ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES DISKTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 9 PAGES DO SEQCODE PROTECTED 11 PAGES DOMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES DOTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 26 PAGES EDIT SEQCODE PROTECTED 8 PAGES EDITMAN ASCII PROTECTED 5 PAGES EDITTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 20 PAGES FILE SEQCODE PROTECTED 20 PAGES FILEMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES FILETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 54 PAGES IO SEQCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES IOTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 13 PAGES JOB SEQCODE PROTECTED 40 PAGES JOBBUFFER1 SCRATCH PROTECTED 20 PAGES JOBBUFFER2 SCRATCH PROTECTED 20 PAGES JOBINPUT SEQCODE PROTECTED 3 PAGES JOBINPUTTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 6 PAGES JOBOUTPUT SEQCODE PROTECTED 2 PAGES JOBOUTPUTTXT ASCII PROTECTED 6 PAGES JOBPREFIX ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES JOBSERVICE SEQCODE PROTECTED 3 PAGES JOBSERVICETX ASCII PROTECTED 8 PAGES JOBSTREAM CONCODE PROTECTED 17 PAGES JOBSTREAMTXT ASCII PROTECTED 50 PAGES KERNELTEXT1 ASCII UNPROTECTED 134 PAGES KERNELTEXT2 ASCII UNPROTECTED 129 PAGES KERNELTEXT3 ASCII UNPROTECTED 147 PAGES KERNELTEXT4 ASCII UNPROTECTED 171 PAGES LIST SEQCODE PROTECTED 7 PAGES LISTMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES LISTTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 19 PAGES MAKETEMP SEQCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES MAKETEMPMAN ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES MAKETEMPTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 12 PAGES MOVE SEQCODE PROTECTED 2 PAGES MOVEMAN ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES MOVETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 10 PAGES MTOPTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 4 PAGES NEXT SCRATCH PROTECTED 255 PAGES PIPELINE CONCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES PIPELINETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 8 PAGES PREFIX ASCII PROTECTED 6 PAGES PRINTER SEQCODE PROTECTED 3 PAGES PRINTERMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES PRINTERTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 11 PAGES READ SEQCODE PROTECTED 4 PAGES READMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES READTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 12 PAGES REALTIME CONCODE PROTECTED 11 PAGES REALTIMETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 23 PAGES RKBOOTTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 6 PAGES SOLO CONCODE PROTECTED 18 PAGES SOLOBATTEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 4 PAGES SOLOCOPY ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES SOLOFILES ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES SOLOTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 52 PAGES SPASCAL SEQCODE PROTECTED 7 PAGES SPASCALMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES SPASCALTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 18 PAGES SPASS1 SEQCODE PROTECTED 20 PAGES SPASS1TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 53 PAGES SPASS2 SEQCODE PROTECTED 26 PAGES SPASS2TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 73 PAGES SPASS3 SEQCODE PROTECTED 35 PAGES SPASS3TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 91 PAGES SPASS4 SEQCODE PROTECTED 26 PAGES SPASS4TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 65 PAGES SPASS5 SEQCODE PROTECTED 19 PAGES SPASS5TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 54 PAGES SPASS6 SEQCODE PROTECTED 16 PAGES SPASS6TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 53 PAGES SPASS7 SEQCODE PROTECTED 18 PAGES SPASS7TEXT ASCII PROTECTED 56 PAGES START SEQCODE PROTECTED 3 PAGES STARTMAN ASCII PROTECTED 3 PAGES STARTTEXT ASCII PROTECTED 11 PAGES SUPERMAC ASCII UNPROTECTED 30 PAGES TAPE SEQCODE PROTECTED 3 PAGES TAPEMAN ASCII PROTECTED 2 PAGES TAPETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 14 PAGES TEMP1 SCRATCH PROTECTED 255 PAGES TEMP2 SCRATCH PROTECTED 255 PAGES TOTAPETEXT ASCII UNPROTECTED 4 PAGES WRITE SEQCODE PROTECTED 2 PAGES WRITEMAN ASCII PROTECTED 1 PAGES WRITETEXT ASCII PROTECTED 9 PAGES XMAC ASCII UNPROTECTED 1 PAGES 125 ENTRIES 3391 PAGES

22 years

Re: [pups] Re: Concurrent Pascal, Solo OS, et al

by Al Kossow

I've located a paper which describes the system, which I've put up along with the disc image in www.spies.com/aek/solo I'll see about extracting all of the files.

22 years

Cringely on SCO vs. IBM

by Kenneth Stailey

http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20030605.html Technician, Steal Thyself SCO, Not IBM, May Have Put Unix Code Into Linux Instead? By Robert X. Cringely There is something about institutional memory, the way organizations do or don't remember things. Covering IBM back in the Opel and Akers eras, I noticed a very interesting thing about the way that company handled internal information, which was through the use of plausible deniability. There was a difference at IBM between knowing something and having it be known that you knew something. So when an IBMer would say he didn't know a fact or the answer to my question, it didn't always mean he lacked the information. It could just as easily have meant that he/she hadn't been BRIEFED on the information. Anything learned at the water cooler wasn't real. I wonder, then, how they handle institutional memory issues at SCO, our subject for the last couple weeks, because reality seems not to even be involved. Can it be that the very crime SCO is accusing IBM of committing could have been done, instead, by SCO itself? I think so. Remember, SCO is suing IBM for stealing bits of Unix and putting those bits inside Linux. How IBM is supposed to have done that remains a mystery, because the only version of Linux that includes any IBM authorship claim is for the S/390 mainframes, and even that wasn't written by IBM. According to folks who did the work, it was done under contract to IBM by SuSE Linux AG, the German Linux vendor. IBM provided the hardware and some access to IBM mainframe engineers, but 98 percent of the work was done by SuSE. At Linuxworld 2000, IBM didn't even help with the install or configuration of Linux on the S/390 they loaned SuSE for the show. Where, then, did IBM get those Unix parts it is supposed to have stolen? They certainly didn't come from IBM's version of Unix, AIX, which bears little internal similarity to any other Unix. I think the parts may have come from SCO, itself. Here is where institutional memory ought to come into play but doesn't seem to be. Remember that the motto of the combined Caldera and SCO was "Unifying Unix with Linux for Business." It is very possible that SCO's Linux team added UnixWare and OpenServer code to Linux. They then sent their Linux developers to SuSE when United Linux was formed. Soon after that, CEO Ransom Love departed. Now the SCO management is scouring the UnixWare, OpenServer and Linux code bases and says that they are finding cut-and-pasted code. Chances are that their former employees put it there. "Open Unix 8 is the first step in implementing the vision of the pending new company," said Ransom Love, president and CEO of Caldera Systems in a company press release way back when. "It combines the heritage of Unix with the momentum of Linux, and will be our premiere product for data intensive applications like database, email and supply chain management. The incorporation of the Linux application engine into the UnixWare kernel essentially redefines the direction of the product, and motivates a new brand identity -- Open Unix." But wait, there's more! Here is what Ransom Love said to ZDNet around the same time: ZDNet: What does the future hold for your unified Linux/Unix platform? Love: "When we talk about unifying Unix and Linux, the two have a huge amount in common. A lot of people are running their businesses on Unix, while Linux has a tremendous population on Web servers and other front-end servers. So we are taking both and combining them into one platform." So SCO/Caldera spent two years "unifying" Unix and Linux and is now outraged to find some of their intellectual property in Linux. Well duh! That's exactly what they said they were going to do. But does it even matter? As I noted last week, Novell retained the Unix patents and copyrights when it sold whatever it sold to SCO back in 1995. The best SCO can claim, given that Novell won't pursue a copyright or patent claim against IBM, is that IBM is in violation of its Unix license agreement. WHAT license agreement? That SCO/Novell deal from 1995 gets murkier and murkier when you add in the claims of The Open Group, a consortium that acquired the Unix trademark from Novell at the same time SCO wasn't acquiring the Unix copyrights or patents. "IBM's ability to call AIX a Unix system is due to its license from The Open Group," says the group's marketing vice-president Graham Bird. "This license requires IBM (and all other licensees) to warrant that it's certified products conform with the Single Unix Specification. So, SCO cannot yank IBM's right to call their certified products Unix, I'm delighted to say." If SCO doesn't own the copyrights or patents, and it doesn't even have a sublicensing agreement with the organization that owns the trademark, what rights could they possibly intend to deny IBM as of June 13th?" Nobody really knows. There is an easy solution to this problem, one that I wouldn't be at all surprised is in the works. SCO is angling to be acquired by IBM in an out-of-court settlement. Certainly, IBM can afford to buy the Unix copyrights and patents from Novell and I think Novell would sell them. That would bring everything but the Unix trademark under the same roof. And I don't think IBM really cares that much about the Unix trademark. They care much more about the Linux trademark. So let's say IBM buys up all these rights for a few hundred million dollars, then puts the whole package under the General Public License, essentially making Unix into an Open Source product. Why would IBM do something like that? They'd do it to sell more computers. People forget that IBM is mainly a hardware and services company. By putting Unix under the GPL they would become heroes to the programmers and system admins and end up selling even more hardware and services. Remember, IBM already invested $1 billion in Linux and claimed to have made that money back within a year. Buying SCO and the Novell IP could be viewed as just the next step of that very smart investment. [...snip unrelated sections...] __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

22 years

Re: [TUHS] About Sys V copyright notices

by Warren Toomey

Warren did: > > $ zcat tape1.tar.gz | strings | grep -i copyr | uniq -c | sort -rn On Thu, Jun 05, 2003 at 11:35:53AM -0700, Kenneth Stailey wrote: > why did you run "uniq -c | sort" and not "sort | uniq -c" ? Because it was late. I really should have done $ zcat tape1.tar.gz | strings | grep -i copyr | sort | uniq -c | sort -rn: 56 /* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */ 20 c/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */ 6 Copyright \fB\^\s+8\v'.25m'\(co\v'-.25m'\s-8\|\fP1983 Western Electric Company, Incorporated. 6 "\001c\bO", /*copyright*/ 4 Portions of this document were copyrighted 4 PAIR('c','o'), 0336, /*copyright*/ 2 x/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */ 2 t/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */ 2 e/* Copyright (c) 1979 Regents of the University of California */ 2 copyright 2 0153, /*copyright*/ 2 .\" Portions of this document were copyrighted 2 'co', 0336, /*copyright*/ 2 "\033\016O\b#\033\017", /*copyright*/ 2 "\003(c)", /*copyright*/ 2 "\001\0338c\0339", /*copyright*/ 2 * Copyright 1975 Bell Telephone Laboratories, Incorporated 2 /* Copyright 1976, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc., There, that's better :-) Warren

22 years

About Sys III status

by Wesley Parish

I came across this: cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt 17 U.S.C. 101. Version 32V source code has now been distributed, without notice, to literally thousands of licensees. Consequently, Plaintiff can have no valid copyright on 32V unless it can fit within one of the statutory or common law escape provisions. The three statutory escape provisions are listed in section 405(a). These provisions relieve a copyright owner from the harsh consequences of noticeless publication if the owner (i) omitted the notice from a "relatively small number of copies;" (ii) registers the work within five years of publication, and then makes a "reasonable effort" to add notices to the noticeless copies already distributed; or (iii) proves that a third party omitted, notice in violation of an express agreement in writing 17 U.S.C 405(a)(1)-(3). Plaintiff cannot avail itself of any of these provisions. Notice was omitted from thousands of copies of 32V; no contractual agreements require the licensees to affix notice; Plaintiff failed to copyright 32V until 1992, well over five years after 32V was published; and Plaintiff has not yet made reasonable efforts to add notices to the many noticeless publications of 32V. Consequently, Plaintiff must try to fit within the common-law doctrine of limited publication. and I felt like asking a few questions in relation to Sys III - was it copyrighted? When? And has SCO's publication of said Sys III on its Ancient Unix web site created the presumption that SCO has no further interest in Sys III? Wesley Parish -- 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."

22 years

the SCO/Novell contract

by Kenneth Stailey

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-1013229.html Contract illuminates Novell, SCO spat By Stephen Shankland Staff Writer, CNET News.com June 4, 2003, 3:01 PM PT A 1995 contract sheds light on the conflicting Unix ownership claims by Novell and SCO Group, with SCO receiving broad rights to the operating system but Novell retaining copyrights and patents. According to a copy of the contract obtained by CNET News.com, Novell sold "all rights and ownership of Unix and UnixWare" to the SCO Group's predecessor, the Santa Cruz Operation. However, the asset purchase agreement, filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, specifically excludes "all copyrights" and "all patents" from the purchase. "This agreement is kind of murky...You end up with a lot of questions, to put it mildly," said Mark Radcliffe, an intellectual property attorney with law firm Gray Cary. While the contract squarely leaves the copyright with Novell, a section that gives to SCO "all claims...against any parties relating to any right, property or asset included in the (Unix) business" could be interpreted to give SCO the right to enforce the copyright, Radcliffe said. "The question is, even though (Novell) didn't assign the intellectual property (to SCO), did (Novell) assign the rights to enforce the patents and copyrights?" The Unix ownership issue is central to a debate about whether companies can be taken to court for using Linux. On May 14, SCO claimed in letters sent to 1,500 of the world's largest companies that using Linux could open them to legal liability because Unix source code has been copied into Linux. That copying, if proven and illegal, could violate Unix copyrights and the independent spirit of the open-source movement that creates Linux, but the contract indicates SCO won't have a simple time relying on Unix copyrights in such a case. A week after SCO's letter, Novell said it never sold SCO the Unix copyrights and patents and that SCO's actions could bring legal action on itself. "We believe it unlikely that SCO can demonstrate that it has any ownership interest whatsoever in those copyrights," Novell Chief Executive Jack Messman said in a letter to SCO. The Unix ownership debate grew from SCO's $1 billion lawsuit against IBM, alleging Big Blue breached its contract with SCO and misappropriated SCO's trade secrets by moving Unix intellectual property into Linux. IBM denies the claims. SCO didn't immediately respond to questions about how the contract supports its claims to rights of copyright enforcement, but company Chief Executive Darl McBride last week said the contract had "conflicting statements." "It doesn't make sense. How would you transfer the product but not have the copyright attached? That would be like transferring a book but only getting the cover," McBride said. Novell continues to disagree with SCO. "It's pretty clear that patents and copyrights were excluded and not included in the business as it's described (in the contract), so we don't believe SCO would have copyright and patent enforcement rights," Hal Thayer, vice president of communications for Novell, said Wednesday. Novell is basing future operating system products on Linux, and open-source advocates say they are reassured by Messman's words that the company won't press its own copyright claims. "Novell is an ardent supporter of Linux and the open-source development community," Messman has said. "It's difficult to imagine any scenario in which we'd bring Unix copyright infringement action against Linux users. We certainly don't have any plans to do any such thing...and we wouldn't have undertaken this whole call to SCO to prove their claims if that was the road we wanted to pursue," Thayer said. The 1995 contract appears to give Novell the edge in the copyright debate, said John Ferrell, an intellectual property attorney with Carr and Ferrell, who reviewed the contract. "This would support Novell's contention that SCO does not own the copyrights and does not have the right to litigate" a copyright infringement case, Ferrell said. However, he said, the contract does indicate SCO could pursue a case that a Unix licensee breached its contract. But the contract is odd, Ferrell said. "It's very unusual to have the transfer of a software program and not have the rights of copyright transferred as well," he said. SCO vehemently argues that it has copyright enforcement rights, but in any case, it doesn't need the Unix copyright to go after Linux users. "I think it's perfectly clear we have the rights to enforce copyright claims," McBride said in an interview after Novell challenged SCO's Linux actions. But more likely than a copyright case, would be one based on breach of contract, he said. "The letter went to 1,500 large companies around the world, the majority of which all have (Unix) System V licenses with us...We do have sublicense rights," McBride said. "They sign up for the fact that they will not misappropriate the code." The sublicenses come through Unix purchases made with direct Unix licensees such as Silicon Graphics, Hewlett-Packard and IBM, he said. But the absence of copyright and patent claims in SCO's lawsuit against IBM is telling, Gray Cary's Radcliffe said. Copyright and patent claims can make a strong case. "If they had the rights to enforce the copyrights, how come that didn't show up in the IBM suit?" Radcliffe asked. "It's very weird they would bring a lawsuit on trade secret (misappropriation) and unfair competition and not put in copyrights and patents. Those are the strongest rights. Particularly with IBM, you don't go out and say, 'I'm not going to take the elephant-hunting rifle with me, I'm just going to take my .22-caliber.'" SCO has said it has the option to include copyright claims later. But while it's said Unix code was copied into Linux, it hasn't yet said who it believes is responsible. SCO says it will show proof of the copying later this month to some neutral parties. SCO's suit mentions concepts and methods, but not copyrights: "It is not possible for Linux to rapidly reach Unix performance standards for complete enterprise functionality without the misappropriation of Unix code, methods or concepts to achieve such performance and coordination by a larger developer such as IBM." Radcliffe said copying methods and concepts are much weaker evidence than copying code. "If they did enough due diligence to figure out there were concepts there, how the heck did they miss that there was actual code copying?" he asked. __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

22 years

RE: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs

by Ian King

There's an old joke: If the law is against you, argue the facts. If the facts are against you, argue the law. If both are against you, call the other attorney names. It's possible this is an elaborate tactic to step on IBM's feet until IBM apologizes - see "The Mouse That Roared". It could be that the issues are so convoluted, the SCO folks are very crafty (and think they can irritate Big Blue enough that IBM will pay them to go away). But it is indeed possible that they are really this clueless. There are many examples of businesses that once held pre-eminent positions, layed low by bonehead business decisions. In any event, baseless lawsuits are a common business tool these days. And in a country where you can become independently wealthy by spilling coffee in your lap, and you can lose the popular vote by a large margin but be appointed to the highest office in the land by your daddy's Supreme Court - is any legal maneuver really a surprise anymore? I printed out my "ancient UNIX" license (I got a no-charge license), I'm not erasing my RK05s yet. :-) -- Ian NOTE: The above is my personal ranting, and should not be construed to reflect the policies or opinions of my employer. ________________________________ From: tuhs-admin(a)minnie.tuhs.org on behalf of Larry McVoy Sent: Thu 5/29/2003 7:42 PM To: tuhs(a)minnie.tuhs.org Subject: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs > SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes > them for the fruads that they have become. In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this stuff is more complex than it seems. For instance, I am pretty sure that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v or v7 code. bmap() is a good place to look. Any suggestions that that was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion. I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately familiar with the code. In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the allocation policy is 90% of the file system). I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes. And I think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations (we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without peer in that department :-) But I suspect that there is at least some merit to what they are claiming. I have to believe that nobody is stupid enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing. That's just way too far over the top. Anything is possible I guess, but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would commit that public a suicide? I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up. I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it, they have more experience. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm _______________________________________________ TUHS mailing list TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs

22 years, 1 month

Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs

by Larry McVoy

> SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes > them for the fruads that they have become. In the for what it is worth department, I happen to know that this stuff is more complex than it seems. For instance, I am pretty sure that ATT should have won their lawsuit over the BSD stuff and if you doubt that I'd suggest that you go compare the UFS code against the 32v or v7 code. bmap() is a good place to look. Any suggestions that that was completely rewritten are patently false, at least in my opinion. I'm a file system guy, I've done a lot of work in UFS, I'm intimately familiar with the code. In fact, I defended UFS against LFS when Kirk wouldn't (LFS is a friggin' joke, any file system hacker knows that the allocation policy is 90% of the file system). I do not have knowledge of the code it is that SCO says infringes. And I think that SCO is about as astute as I am in terms of public relations (we both tend to be our own worst enemies and I thought I was without peer in that department :-) But I suspect that there is at least some merit to what they are claiming. I have to believe that nobody is stupid enough to have zero data and jump out in public like they are doing. That's just way too far over the top. Anything is possible I guess, but doesn't it seem just a little unlikely that a corporation would commit that public a suicide? I'll probably be proved wrong but I'm a CEO, running a small company, much smaller than SCO, and there is no way I'd stick my neck out that far with no data to back it up. I'd like to think I'm smarter than they are but I tend to doubt it, they have more experience. -- --- Larry McVoy lm at bitmover.com http://www.bitmover.com/lm

22 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] Re: TUHS digest, Vol 1 #159 - 12 msgs

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Greg Lehey: For example, last year Caldera released "ancient UNIX" under a BSD-style license, but now they're claiming it never happened. Maybe they don't know about the company history. And if the code in dispute is derived from ancient UNIX, there'll be egg on their face. ===== If the code in dispute is derived from an ancient UNIX covered by the Jan 2002 free license, and it doesn't clearly say so somewhere, there is certainly egg and chips on someone's face. Said license imposes few conditions, but one is that Caldera's copyright must be maintained and the notice `This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.' placed in `any advertising materials.' Of course, if the code comes from V6 and those notices are present and Caldera still claims it's stolen, that's another basket of eggs. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years, 1 month

The REEL reasons for the SCO vs. IBM affair

by msokolov＠ivan.Harhan.ORG

Hello folks. I've been watching this whole SCO vs. IBM assault on Linux thing and here are my thoughts. I would not surprised a bit if it turns out that this idea was conceived somewhere inside Microsoft, or in the White House, in the Pentagon, or even at Area 51. This is about world control. A certain group of enormous power has been ruling this planet and holding it in slavery for the past 4000 years. They are the ones in control today. They control the world through their control of globalised imperial capitalism, total control of all media, and mind control achieved by controlling all information input into human minds. Control of computing and information resources is obviously of vital importance to them in this day and age. It is they who invented M$ Weendoze, probably the most effective brainwashing device since the Bible. It is really Weendoze that keeps them in power. There are many activists fighting against this shadow government, but their efforts are in vain for as long as they use Weendoze. Fighting the shadow government while using their OS is like going on a duel and having your opponent load your gun for you. This is precisely why the shadow government is acting so arrogantly and seemingly naively. Many conspiracy researchers have wondered how come if this shadow govt is so powerful and obviously wants to remain in control, why aren't they assassinating us or something to stop our efforts to defeat them. And I think I know the answer now. They government is not assassinating conspiracy researchers en masse because the vast majority of them use Weendoze and praise Bill Gates. Thus while thinking that they are fighting the shadow government, they actually support it. And now it seems like the shadowy powers have begun to *really* fear Linux. Because Linux more than anything poses the greatest threat to their power. It does because if all those conspiracy researchers and anti-shadow govt freedom fighters who are already out there happen to switch to Windows to Linux, the probability of which rises proportionally as Linux gains more and more use, then bye-bye shadow government. *That* is what they fear. And that is why they have undertaken this ultrasecret covert anti-Linux operation. Just my thoughts. MS P.S. Too bad that you've just missed Conspiracy Con 2003 last weekend, but they have them every year. But there is also the companion conference, Bay Area UFO Expo held in September, where they also talk a lot about conspiracies, as these conspiracies are ultimately extraterrestrial. If anyone is interested in this I strongly recommend going to the Expo this September. I'll be there if anyone wants to meet me.

22 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by Wesley Parish

On Friday 30 May 2003 11:50 am, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote: > On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote: > > In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com> > > > > Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes: > >> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and > >> not on copyright issues. > > > > All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their > > statements to the press have been inflated to include things that > > aren't actually alledged in the court filings. > > What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The > IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they > have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a > different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html: > > On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing > director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three > independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux > kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant > occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both > kernels. > > In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether > the code in question might have been legally transferred from an > older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant > UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically > UnixWare 7. > > >> But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and > >> putting it into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit > >> upset about it, after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to > >> compete with a product that's just about free and contains code > >> that I wrote. > > > > That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code > > they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to? > > Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright. The > release of JFS was one example. Probably the majority of AIX was > developed by IBM, not by AT&T. It's rather similar to the issue with > 4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably > replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not > require an SCO license. I would say that that is entirely likely. AIX was developed by IBM for IBM-specific machines running in IBM-style environments, and I can imagine that SysVRx just _doesn't_ _cut_ _the_ _mustard_. So, SCO's latching on the IBM for Monterey - RS-6000 was 64-bit, or am I getting confused? - probably gave SCO much more than it gave IBM. So ironically, if IBM donated stuff to Monterey under the terms of the agreement and later incorporated the same stuff into Linux, it _could_ look as if they had taken stuff from SysVRx/Unixware - stuff that SCO had never had the opportunity to develop if it hadn't been for Monterey and IBM's pre-existing expertise. Just some thoughts - but if that is so, I can see why IBM's not getting too het up about the whole muck-up. Wesley Parish > If you mean "is there IBM copyright code in Linux?", I think the > answer is again yes, but it's under the GPL or possibly IPL, IBM's > attempt at a compromise between proprietary licenses and the GPL. I > think they've given up on the IPL now. > > For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be > true. > > Greg -- 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."

22 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Interesting. I suggest everyone interested in this fracas read the whole scoop at (to repeat Kenneth Stailey's pointer) http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early 2002? Are those agreements really valid? Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years, 1 month

Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

M. Warner Losh: There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15 line snippets scattered all through the kernel. Give me a break. That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face. I can see one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I can't see anything more pervasive than that. I agree that it sounds unlikely, and I won't give it much credit until SCO makes its evidence generally available. But it's by no means absurd. Suppose SCO invented some whizzy data structure and associated code conventions to afford especially efficient interprocessor locks. That could show up in fragments scattered throughout the kernel, and the idea itself could in fact be valuable intellectual property and the fragments a demonstration that the idea was stolen. Or suppose the issue at hand was a particular way to implement a file system switch. I was involved in adding such a thing to an old-fashioned kernel myself; it touches many little pieces of code all over the kernel that happen to do certain things to or with in-core i-nodes. If I was worried that someone had stolen such work wholesale, part of what I would look for would indeed be scattered fragments. As I say, there's no useful evidence on view at all, therefore there is no useful evidence that what I am describing is what the fuss is about. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years, 1 month

where to find source to pack(1)/unpack(1)

by Kenneth Stailey

Hi, I have a cont.a.z I would like to extract. When I run it through Solaris unpack(1) there are no complaints but then I go to unarchive it with either my 3BSD derived ar11 port or Warren's 2.9BSD newoldar and get: $ file cont.a cont.a: old PDP-11 archive $ ar11 tv cont.a rwx---r-- 2/0 3505 Aug 20 17:07 1976 alog.mat rw----r-- 2/0 273 Jan 3 05:14 1978 assem rwx---r-- 2/0 6332 Aug 20 17:07 1976 atan.mat r-s--x-w- 9/49170995977 Oct 22 01:48 1974 1 1 1 1 1 ar11: phase error on 1 1 1 1 1 Same thing with newoldar. I'm thinking Solaris unpack was incompatible with the pack that was used to make the cont.a.z. Possibly endian issues. I go poking around for pack(1) in V7 and PWB and 2.11BSD but can't find anything. Any ideas? Thanks, Ken __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM). http://calendar.yahoo.com

22 years, 1 month

Re: non-broken 4.3BSD set?

by Warren Toomey

In article by Robertdkeys(a)aol.com: > Warren... is there a non-broken 4.3BSD-Tahoe set somewhere? > Bob As in a bootable 4.3BSD-Tahoe kit? As far as I know, no. The Unix Archive has a broken copy in 4BSD/Distributions/4.3BSD-Tahoe, indicating that both usr.tar and src.tar are broken. It might/should be possible to merge files from the CRSG CD set from Kirk to recreate these tar files. Anybody out there have an unbroken Tahoe release? Warren

22 years, 1 month

SCO vs. IBM: Eric Raymond striking a blow for ... something

by norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca

Aharon Robbins: I just saw this: http://www.catb.org/~esr/nosecrets/ This either Very Smart or Very Dumb, I'm not sure which. I will just point out the recursive conflict when he says I can't talk about how this information will be applied, nor by who. You'll have to trust me, or at any rate my record as ambassador to the community ... I find it hard to take a secret No Secrets campaign seriously. If I am to be used as an example of something or to promote some cause, I think it's only fair that the campaigner tell me just what he's up to first. That such a campaign exists in the current context also sounds to me like an admission that substantial parts of Linux were in fact lifted directly from a licensed UNIX. That that might be so seems surprising; that someone would want to prove it was OK even more so. Norman Wilson Toronto ON

22 years, 1 month

Jump to page:

2025

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

TUHS