Except rulings since then said they never had the right (as they never owned the rights). ###### from my slide notes ######## TITLE=Who owns ancient Unix? IMAGE=images/netbsd-pcc-caldera-license-screenshot.png Some background: BULLET=Western Electric's patent department told the Bell Labs developers to remove all copyright notices from all Unix files. NOTE:They shipped code that did have a license agreement nevertheless. BULLET=These 1970's distributions pre-dated the US copyright law changes in 1989 (due to the Berne Convention) which made copyrights automatic. BULLET=Western Electric / BTL purposeful removal of copyrights may have meant forfeiture of copyright. Western Electric's patent department told the Bell Labs developers to remove all copyright notices from all Unix files. They shipped code that did have a license agreement nevertheless. These 1970's distributions pre-dated the US copyright law changes in 1989 (due to the Berne Convention) which made copyrights automatic. The 1970's purposeful removal of copyrights may have meant forfeiture of copyright. BULLET=In 1984, AT&T did retroactively copyright some of their ancient Unix code. BULLET=They also mistakenly placed their copyright on code copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California. In 1984, AT&T did retroactively copyright some of their ancient Unix code. They also placed their copyright on code copyrighted by the Regents of the University of California. Here is an example: https://github.com/att/uwin/blob/master/src/cmd/captoinfo/otermcap.c BULLET=Unix System Laboratories (USL) was formed for Bell Labs around 1989 for the responsibility for Unix development and Unix licensing activities. NOTE:It became a subsidiary of AT&T. Unix System Laboratories (USL) was formed for Bell Labs around 1989 for the responsibility for Unix development and Unix licensing activities. It became a subsidiary of AT&T. BULLET= In 1993, Novell purchases USL and its Unix assets (including copyrights). In 1993, Novell purchases USL and its Unix assets (including copyrights). NOTE: In regards to AT&T/Novell vs. UC/BSDI ... BULLET=In 1993, judge shared the opinion and again reaffirmed that USL "failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V" # Salus told me (around 2011) he was in the opinion (shared by the folks at Cravath, Swain..., IBM's lawyers) that V1-7 and 32V were covered by Judge Dickinson Debevoise's finding on 3 March 1993 (reaffirmed on 30 March 1993) that it was "unlikely" that Novell could successfully maintain copyright to the early UNIX versions or the BSD versions 2-4.4. Also in 1993, Judge Dickinson Debevoise's shared the opinion and again reaffirmed that USL "failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in 32V" (that is the ancient Unix). http://tech-insider.org/usl-v-bsdi-ucb/research/1993/0303.html http://tech-insider.org/usl-v-bsdi-ucb/research/1993/0330.html BULLET=In 1995, Novell transfered some Unix rights to The SCO Group. As part of their agreement, multiple times. it specifically excluded copyrights. BULLET=SCO believed they purchased the Unix copyrights. BULLET= Novell contented it retained the copyrights ownership. In 1995, Novell intended to sell its Unix business. It transfered some Unix rights to The SCO Group. As part of their agreement, multiple times. it specifically excluded copyrights. SCO believed they purchased the Unix copyrights. Novell contented it retained the copyrights onwership. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/08/08-4217.pdf ############# TITLE=Who owns ancient Unix? (continued) IMAGE=images/Caldera-license.png BULLET=In 2001, SCO sold its Unix business, including its believed ownership of Unix copyrights, to Caldera. In 2001, SCO sold its Unix business, including its believed ownership of Unix copyrights, to Caldera. NOTE: SCO renamed itself to Tarantella CITE: https://web.archive.org/web/20071001003614/http://sec.edgar-online.com/2001… BULLET=In 2002, Caldera widely announced that the ancient Unix code (through 32V) were copyright by Caldera and licensed under an open source license. NOTE: They (assuming they owned it) gave the 1970's code away to the world. In 2002, Caldera widely announced that the ancient Unix code (through 32V) were copyright by Caldera and licensed under an open source license. They (assuming they owned it) gave the 1970's code away to the world. http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf also at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf BULLET=In 2002, Caldera changed its name to SCO. In 2002, Caldera changed its name to SCO. NOTE:the ancient Unixes were widely distributed In 2002 and soon later, the ancient Unixes were widely distributed and reused, under the copyright and license from Caldera. Some examples are at http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/external/bsd/pcc/dist/pcc/cc/cc/cc.… http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/games/ching/ching/ching.sh?rev=1.1&… http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/spell/spellprog/spellprog.c… http://cvsweb.netbsd.org/bsdweb.cgi/src/usr.bin/deroff/deroff.c?rev=1.1&… Many many projects widely share and reuse this historical code, such as http://heirloom.sourceforge.net/ The various code is mirrored all over the internet. Note this effectively put copyrights and licenses on unchanged code that previously had no copyright and license. BULLET=The new "SCO" attempted to say they owned Unix rights. BULLET=Defendent's lawyers believed that it was unlikely that anyone could could successfully maintain copyright to the early Unix versions (based on 1993 opinion). The new "SCO" attempted to say they owned Unix rights even though they had given them away via open source licensing. They tried to challenge IBM regarding this. IBM's lawyers believed that it was unlikely that anyone could could successfully maintain copyright to the early Unix versions. BULLET=In 2003, Novell stated it did not transfer copyrights for Unix System V to Caldera and communicated it would support the open source (and Linux) communities implying it would not challenge use of that Unix code. NOTE:Probably because they knew earlier opinions indicated that couldn't challenge it. In 2003, Novell stated it did not transfer copyrights for Unix System V to Caldera and communicated it would support the open source (and Linux) communities implying it would not challenge use of that Unix code. (Probably because they knew earlier opinions indicated that couldn't challenge it.) https://web.archive.org/web/20030602195439/http://www.novell.com/news/press… BULLET= In 2007, a district court concluded that Novell was the owner of the Unix copyrights. In 2007, a district court concluded that Novell was the owner of the Unix copyrights. BULLET= In 2009. a district court affirmed again that Novell was the owner of the Unix copyrights. In 2009. a district court affirmed again that Novell was the owner of the Unix copyrights. BULLET= In 2010, a jury confirmed Novell's ownership of Unix and again Novell communicated its protection of the open source community use of that Unix code. In 2010, a jury confirmed Novell's ownership of Unix and again communicated its protection of the open source community use of that Unix code. https://www.microfocus.com/about/press-room/article/2010/utah-jury-confirms… BULLET=In 2011, a district court again affirmed Novell's copyright ownership. In 2011, a district court again affirmed Novell's copyright ownership. https://www.ca10.uscourts.gov/opinions/10/10-4122.pdf BULLET=In 2011, Novell is acquired by the Attachemate Group. In 2011, Novell is acquired by the Attachemate Group. BULLET=In 2014, Micro Focus acquires the Attachemate Group. In 2014, Micro Focus acquires the Attachemate Group. BULLET=Micro Focus's press-room website shares old 2010 news: "The jury's decision confirmed Novell's ownership of the UNIX copyrights, which SCO had asserted to own in its attack on Linux." https://www.microfocus.com/about/press-room/article/2010/utah-jury-confirms… As individuals and organizations distribute the 1970's Unix code they do based on the copyright and license of Caldera. But as you can see later years, it was stated multiple times that really Novell may be the owner of that code. Here is the situation summarized again: - No copyrights when copyright statements were required. (These non-copyrighted files are widely available today.) - Software was widely shipped and reused (This is easily seen today.) - Company that owned the rights to Unix couldn't really claim the copyrights because they didn't exist. (And that company doesn't really exist anymore. And even if they did they could never close up something that was given away for free already by them.) - Effectively with no copyright and their very wide distribution, they are like public domain. - The commercial Unixes are mostly rewrites or reimplementations of some of the historical Unix code. While some of the old code may exist there, it is very different. The last commercial Unix systems Solaris, AIX, and HP-UX are being phased out and have no interest in the 1970's Unix code. - Maybe Micro Focus owns the copyrights for the later Unix code. Micro Focus's purchased businesses had no recent interest in the ancient Unix code in last 24 years. One of those businesses explicitely communicated it would not pursue copyright litigation over the historic Unix source code (probably because they couldn't prove the old code was copyrighted). As far as I know, Micro Focus doesn't sell the software nor licensing for ancient Unix, but maybe newer Unix. https://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/licensinghome.aspx https://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/Unix1.asp https://supportline.microfocus.com/licensing/unixdeployment.asp?prod=unix https://community.microfocus.com/t5/Over-the-Back-Fence/Micro-Focus-s-stanc… (Note again this code was open sourced because Caldera thought they bought the ownership from Novell, which now is a part of Micro Focus.) (A couple years ago) I got in contact with Stirling Adams, Associate General Counsel, Head of IP at Micro Focus. They will research it. I doubt they know about it :) (This was done because of a NetBSD license request regarding some of this licensed code.) I'd like to get Micro Focus to provide an additional statement somewhat similar to what Nokia did (but less restrictive) that it will will not assert any copyright rights on the 1970's Research Unix Editions. I have a feeling if the can understand it, that this may be opening up a can of worms. That is they won't like that caldera put their copyright on it. Basically I'd want Micro Focus just to acknowledge that it wasn't copyrighted and they won't assert any rights. (But what are the rules for EU in regards to making it public domain?) On the side, I also asked them about the commercial Unix editions that they may own from the 1980's. It would be interesting to know their interests there too. (2 Apr 2018) By the way, Nokia apparently owns the rights to the non-commercial "research" versions of Unix in the 1980s. They didn't open source it fully, but allow non-commercial use. http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Distributions/Research/Dan_Cross_v8/statement_r…

On Mon, May 17, 2021 at 7:33 PM Jason Stevens < jsteve(a)superglobalmegacorp.com&gt; wrote: Part of the problem too isn't so much who owns the copyrights, but whether or not the copyrights for the V7 and earlier actually exist and are valid. One of the reasons the BSD suit was settled was at the time the judge strongly telegraphed that there wasn't a valid copyright by western union based on the copyright law at its time of creation.... So even the question of who owns the unix copyright might not be as simple as all that... The stuff is so old, there's no money in removing any of the ambiguity for the current copyright holders (to the extent that it is valid), so we're left with a lot of possibility, but no certainty. Though given the Supreme Court's latest 'fair use' rulings, it wouldn't surprise me if were it to wind up in court if that didn't further weaken the answer to the point where it just doesn't matter what the underlying details are, copying and making a derived work would be OK. Though that's my own layman's best guess... Warner