SCO vs. IBM battle resumes over ownership of Unix IBM's lawsuit with SCO over just who owns Unix has crawled out of the grave and seems set to shuffle back into US courts. For the uninitiated, or those who've successfully tried to forget this turgid saga, a brief summary: SCO in 2003 sued IBM for doing something nasty to bits of Unix it owned. Or felt it owned. SCO also sued …
FUD? not so much...
"Microsoft funding of SCO controversy
On March 4, 2004, a leaked SCO internal e-mail detailed how Microsoft had raised up to $106 million via the BayStar referral and other means. Blake Stowell of SCO confirmed the memo was real. BayStar claimed the deal was suggested by Microsoft, but that no money for it came directly from them. In addition to the Baystar involvement, Microsoft paid SCO $6M (USD) in May 2003 for a license to "Unix and Unix-related patents", despite the lack of Unix-related patents owned by SCO. This deal was widely seen in the press as a boost to SCO's finances which would help SCO with its lawsuit against IBM"
(from wikipedia - cause i knew it had happened but couldnt remember when etc)
I can't really understand how anyone thinks this has a chance.
Hurdle No. 1: SCO does not own the copyright to Unix, Novell owns it.
Hurdle No. 2: Linux did not copy from Unix, both copied from BSD, and both are entitled to do that.
Hurdle No. 3: SCO published the code in question as part of Caldera Open Linux, and licenced it under the terms of the GPL, which gives people permission to copy it. Novell did the same as part of SuSE Linux.
If you fall at any one of those hurdles, the case fails. They fell at hurdle no. 1 last time round. Even if they get over that hurdle this time, they still have hurdles 2 and 3.
Well I moved one of my servers from OpenSuSE to FreeBSD. They have a lot more in common than the differences between them. ZFS is a difference, and the reason why I switched. There is ZFS for Linux, but it isn't mature enough for me at the moment. The kernels are obviously different, but most of the stuff running on top of the kernels seems to be the same on both.
> What?
Berkley started with an early AT&T Unix and contributed lots of code back into Unix. Later they created their own distribution.
"""Though these proprietary BSD derivatives were largely superseded by the UNIX System V Release 4 and OSF/1 systems in the 1990s (both of which incorporated BSD code and are the basis of other modern Unix systems), ..."""
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berkeley_Software_Distribution
> Hurdle No. 1: SCO does not own the copyright to Unix, Novell owns it.
That is rather simplistic and actually wrong. It is true that no copyrights transferred from Novell to SCO at the time of the sale. Since then any original lines of code written by SCO would probably be their copyright. Whether Novell actually has any protectable copyrights in Unix has not been addressed. The original Unixes are likely to no longer have any copyright due to lack of registering, at least one version was put in the public domain. Over the years there have been many contributions from hundreds of different parties who may have retained copyright on their code, or have licenced it in ways that allow usage. Determining the state of those is just not practical.
> Yes, but who owns Novell these days?
Doesn't matter.
Novell knowingly and deliberately released code under the GPL, and has been very open about that.
Should Novell actually own any Unix copyrights - if there are any to own - everything they have released under the GPL is properly licensed as such. Anyone who subsequently owns these putative copyrights cannot rescind that license; it is permanent.
Vic.
Funnily enough, I thought SCO was long dead anyway
Oh but it is. However, this needn't be a major impediment. I predicted this event 3 years ago. They said I was mad, they said I was wrong, they laughed at me! But who's laughing now? Mwahahahahahahahaha! I was right all along!
IT LIVES! The Master Lives!!!!
I agree very much, still I feel sorry for those guys who worked and developed SCO Unix. I worked some 15 years with different Unix-like systems like FOR-PRO, SCO, HP-UX, Solaris and AIx. SCO was not bad at all but was run on cheaper hardware. The word to remember here is not Unix but the POSIX standard for Unix-like systems. Porting software between different "systems" was not always "automatic" but possible when you understood what to avoid. Anybody could write a Unix-like system and call it what ever just not Unix without breaking any law. Code copying without permission is out of the question of course. And Linux is Linux.
If you look at this graph you can see that Linux stands alone.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Unix_history-simple.svg
Corporations are nothing but papers filed in a court somewhere, a legal fiction designed for profit.
Anyone that thinks there's something to be gained from one, no matter how defunct it is, merely has to contact the owners and strike a deal with them.
Now the *big* question, who, besides the lawyers hired, stands to profit from this, and how? (Money, IP, FUD, LULZ?)
Haven't you been paying attention? The SCOTUS (Supreme Court) says corporations are people. Sociopathic people focused on nothing but making money.
Then the SCOTUS wonders why people are losing respect for the law? Don't forget Bush v. Gore, for-profit prisons, and the pursuit of pot smokers. Oh? You thought they were pursuing happiness? Fie fie on you.
Short summary of why the system is increasingly phucked even though most businesspeople are fine and upstanding people. It is because a FEW of the greediest and least ethical businessmen are bribing the cheapest professional politicians to rig the game. The insane IP laws and the resulting insane SCO lawsuit are just part of the rigged game.
But don't worry, they'll settle down as soon as they have enough money. ROFLMAO.
"Haven't you been paying attention? The SCOTUS (Supreme Court) says corporations are people. Sociopathic people focused on nothing but making money."
Actually, although that's technically the case, if you look at that ruling, interpreted correctly. it would outlaw corporations! (Follow me here)
A. People create and own a corporation.
B. Corporations are legal entities that the SCOTUS gave human rights.
C. Slavery is illegal. (You may not own another person.)
D. Since forming a corporation creates an entity with human rights, stockholders are technically slave owners.
E. Therefore, forming a corporation is an act that facilitates slavery, and is illegal.
Disclaimer: No, I'm not serious, just pointing out how absurd that "Corporations are people" ruling actually is.
Remember that lawyer that claimed he could drive in the carpool lane because he had a briefcase full of corporate paperwork and thus was legally carpooling? Judge didn't see it that way. Ah, here's the story:
http://www.marinscope.com/news_pointer/news/article_a9168c46-5a93-11e2-abaf-0019bb2963f4.html
When a single company can make this kind of noise and if successful, undermine huge amounts of business simply by creating instability, isn't that a threat to national security.... it would be if we switched SCO for Huweii ....
But large US tech companies trying to destroy each other, thats just all in the game and definitely benefits US business as whole right? (sarcasm)
According to Wikipedia:
Laches is an "unreasonable delay pursuing a right or claim...in a way that prejudices the opposing party" ... ...The person invoking laches is asserting that an opposing party [in this case SCO] has "slept on its rights," and that, as a result of this delay, circumstances have changed such that it is no longer just to grant the plaintiff's original claim.
> There are time limits to file and respond to civil cases.
Doesn't apply here.
The SCO v. IBM case was filed in plenty of time - but was stayed because of the bankruptcy[1].
Vic.
[1] SCO wasn't actually bankrupt when it filed that - it just expected to become so when it lost its case. And the judge allowed it...
... no company in their right mind will ever actually use IP that is lawfully owned by SCO! The world at large will simply code around it. They are spending money, with absolutely zero potential for profit.
SCO is a really, really good example of why manglement & lawyers should be separated from technology, kinda like Church & State (Yes, I know, shaddup about the US, I'm intelligent, I vote, and will continue trying to fix the system ... ).
The lawyers profit. The lawyer-children of the original lawyers could have persuaded someone to stomp up some money in return for 1/3 of the settlement - or something like that.
Enterprising lawyers could create a lawyer-version of kickstarter: "Sue4Ca$h.com" - f.ex. A site where people cast money into the pit to sue anyone they think should be sued and perhaps share the potential profit. It could work except the lawyers would inevitably find a way to appropriate all the money.
"Enterprising lawyers could create a lawyer-version of kickstarter: "Sue4Ca$h.com" - f.ex. A site where people cast money into the pit to sue anyone they think should be sued and perhaps share the potential profit. It could work except the lawyers would inevitably find a way to appropriate all the money."
Oh sweet $deity NO.
Did you have to give them ideas.
Keep in mind that the legal system is designed by lawyers, so it should be no surprise that the winners here are, by an amazing and veritable shocking coincidence, also lawyers.
As far as I can see it (and apologies if I've said this a million times before). this lawsuit will have legs as long as the money is around, and now acts as a textbook example for other lawyers on how to totally milk a case for maximum reputational damage. This lawsuit isn't about justice, it's about creating uncertainty in the minds of the clueless (read: managers) about using Linux. Thus, it has no need to win (that would be a bonus, but is unlikely IMHO), it just has to rumble on and on.
Thus, for what it has to do it seems it is excellent value for money. Whose money is a guess, but not a hard guess - I can imagine it's still cheaper than a marketing campaign.
> a textbook example for other lawyers on how to totally milk a case for maximum reputational damage
Indeed. But that damage appears to have happened to BSF...
> it's about creating uncertainty in the minds of the clueless (read: managers) about using Linux
I think that boat has sailed.
Vic.
Was to apply Rule #2, Double Tap.
It took a few years for the SCO zombie to reawaken and climb back onto its feet, but it has and it is now shuffling and moaning once more for brains, I mean money.
If they cant take the headshot, then take off and nuke the site from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.
IBM was a legitimate source code licensee, with a grant of their SVR2 license in perpetuity from AT&T.
SCO claimed that they could revoke this license, and then sue IBM for shipping code subject to license to customers.
IBM said 'We'll see you in court for you to attempt to prove you have the right to revoke the license".
Strangely, that court case never happened.
If SCO could claim that shipping a more successful product was unfair, then seeing how well UnixWare is doing now, everybody still producing UNIX systems would be in danger. Not!
> And there I was thinking that producing better, more competitive products was
> what capitalism was about!
> Deary me, how naive of me.
Actually, it *is* what capitalism is all about. We don't have that in the USA anymore. What we have is lawyer and liberal-supported corporate entitlement programmes.
If I remember correctly SCO was already trying to sue World + Cat, Mouse & Dog back when this case hit the headlines. Quite literally everyone who they'd suspect of even thinking of using anything *n?x was targeted.
But seriously now... WHAT THE F**K? I can't believe these leeches are still around...
Let alone having resurrected this heap of Godzilla Dung of a "case".
Looking in the wrong direction. Look in the direction where yachts are wind propelled, not motor propelled.
What did you think that "the interested party" will enjoy the API Cannot Be Copyrighted shafting? It (in one of its prior incarnations) supported SCO before, I am betting a case of bubbly that it did support it this time too.
if SCO wins it can start throwing sueballs at the Googles, IBMs and Red Hats of the world and cash in big time
Nobody would pay and nobody would care.
Additionally, by that time, the US and probably Yurop and more likely than not China will be well and truly mired in Superland with the economy doing the final Keynesian titsup limbo dance ... there will be other problems than trying to hoover up money across the world for some sh*t company full of sh*t.
I said a couple of years ago that this may come back. Until it is finally ruled on and closed, beyond all hope of an appeal, it will keep coming back. This is both because the claim is big enough to keep creditors and lawyers interested, and because it is a vector to attach Linux as a platform.
Mind you, the landscape has changed. I never fully understood where Novell's IP went to when SuSE got bought. If it is the case that it ended up with a shell company that is controlled by parties who have an interest in derailing Android, Chrome, Tigon and all of the other Linux related platforms, then consolidating SCO's claim with the ex-Novell's IP could prove more than an annoyance.
It all hinges around UNIX code that was allegedly incorporated into the Linux source tree by IBM as part of AIX code that was ported to Linux (I know that JFS was one thing quoted), but IIRC the case was never proved, as SCO could or would not point out the code in question. There were also arguments about derivative works. But they were never closed either.
Like the MS patent list, I feel that it would be in the best interests of all of the interested parties of Linux to make sure that any code that could be cited was rewritten and expunged from the Linux code tree. At least this would protect future Linux products, and turn this into a chase for money, rather than a FUD attack on Linux.
In one bizarre slant on this, it may actually prolong the life of Genetic UNIX (directly descended from the Bell Labs code), as it keeps it in view. I would love to see the SVR4/UnixWare source opened up as a result of any real settlement of this case, but I think that this is unlikely.
@__________
If you are talking about JFS, then the original implementation was on AIX 3.1, but it was re-implemented (not ported) for OS/2, and it is this that was this OS/2 code that was then ported to Linux. So you are probably right, but not in the way you think.
Your summary is dead on.
SCO claimed that portions of its valuable UNIX source code had been stolen after being shared with IBM during an abortive collaboration. Never mind that IBM has probably forgotten more about writing operating systems than SCO ever knew. Also please ignore the fact that SCO, when pressed, was not able to show examples of where this valuable source code was located in the publicly available Linux sources.
Looking forward to seeing these bozos slapped down hard. This has gone on long enough.
There is a possibly apocryphal story that SCO got the court to agree that IBM should provide all AIX source code for inspection. The story goes that IBM delivered an AIX system, with CMVC loaded on it and containing the complete source tree for AIX to SCO's offices.
When SCO asked what they were supposed to do with it, IBM offered to sell them training courses and consultancy!
> I never fully understood where Novell's IP went to when SuSE got bought.
Novell's copyrights - if any existed - went to Attachmate with the rest of the company.
> consolidating SCO's claim with the ex-Novell's IP could prove more than an annoyance
It won't even be that much.
If Novell had no copyrights, there is nothing to sue over.
If Novell had some Unix copyrights, it licensed them under the GPL to all recipients of Linux. So still nothing to sue over.
Vic.
I think you're wrong. This is what I understand.
UNIX System Laboratories (USL) was set up as the home for UNIX as part of the SVR4 Unified UNIX program, and was joint-owned by a consortium of companies including AT&T. Part of the set-up was that all UNIX IP and code was not just licensed to USL, but the ownership was transferred from AT&T to USL. (I was offered a job by USL in the UK, and nearly took it, so I have an interest in this part of the history)
When USL wound itself up it got bought by Novell, and the ownership of all of the IP for UNIX went to Novell. This included all branding, code, copyright and patent information.
In 1993 or 1994, Novell transferred the UNIX brand and verification suites to X/Open (now The Open Group), and licensed the use of the code and IP to SCO, although through a contractual quirk (SCO not having enough money at the time), the copyright (and I believe that this includes the right to use and license the code) remained with Novell.
SCO then sold itself to Caldera, which then renamed itself the SCO Group.
The SCO Group then tried to assert ownership of the code and failed. This was one of the SCO Group vs. Novell (or vice versa) cases that was ruled on in Novell's favour. In parallel, SCO had engaged in campaigns of FUD and law suites against RedHat, IBM and their customers. These cases have never been concluded and are the ones that will not die, particularly the IBM one.
Novell was then mostly bought by Attachmate, although, and I quote from the Wikipedia article on Novell, "As part of the deal, 882 patents owned by Novell are planned to be sold to CPTN Holdings LLC, a consortium of companies led by Microsoft and including Apple, EMC, and Oracle."
I was never clear about whether this IP included any of UNIX, or if that remained with Novell. This is the bit I am uncertain about. If it went to CPTN Holdings, this is how it could be used, although looking at the agreement, CPTN's ownership of the IP is subject to GPL2 and the OIN licenses, which may offer some protection.
Confused? You will be after this years episode of SCO*
(* with apologies to the creators of Soap for the shameless paraphrase of their catch line)
Please, please! Whoever own the UNIX copyright, publish the non-ancient code under an open license. There's no commercial reason not to any more.
although through a contractual quirk (SCO not having enough money at the time), the copyright (and I believe that this includes the right to use and license the code) remained with Novell.
Hardly a "contractual quirk"; SCO had a small fraction of the asking price, so the deal was re-nogotiated such that SCO just bought the distribution business.
SCO then sold itself to Caldera, which then renamed itself the SCO Group.
SCO sold part of its business to Caldera. The other part renamed itself Tarantella. Caldera then changed its name to SCO. Ther was, quite obviously, no attempt to confuse or deceive. Nope, none at all.
These cases have never been concluded
Some have - e.g. SCO vs. Daimler-Chrysler.
But most importantly, the Court has already concluded[1] that Novell retained ownership of "the UNIX and UnixWare copyrights" (although ISTR there was some discussion over what was actually in that set). SCO vs. Novell is closed[2], with a resounding win for Novell (although we all know that SCO will never actually pay up). The Court has confirmed Novell's ownership of everything in Unix that can be owned, and the Supreme Court has dismissed certiorari. SCO has appealed that, but the chances of the Supreme Court deciding to rule against itself are pretty slim...
Most of the remainnig cases were stayed pending the outcome of SCO vs. IBM. That was unstayed just a few days ago. It's not currently clear whether or not SCO has anything at all left to litigate after the demolition of the Novell case.
I was never clear about whether this IP included any of UNIX, or if that remained with Novell.
Well, there were all those patents. I don't know what those patents covered - indeed, I'm not even sure that was ever disclosed. But patents have a comparatively short lifespan, so there's nothing to worry about there (they'll have expired). Besides which, section 7 of GPLv2 contains an implicit patent grant; if Novell had not licensed any patents it might have had, it would be in breach of copyright. There will not be a patent case against Linux on the back of those patents.
Copyrights, on the other hand, are long-lived. But GPLv2 section 6 explicitly gives all recipients the right to redistribute. There will not be a copyright case against Linux on the back of these copyrights.
If it went to CPTN Holdings, this is how it could be used
It can't - because Novell distributed Linux under the GPL.
Confused? You will be after this years episode of SCO
The case itself is not that confusing - SCO claimed the contract gave them certain rights, whereas the contract said the exact opposite. The only bit I find confusing is how supposedly intelligent people can stand up in court and expect this turd of a case to go anywhere.
Please, please! Whoever own the UNIX copyright, publish the non-ancient code under an open license. There's no commercial reason not to any more.
There is. Many of the original contributors cannot be traced, and thus their code is orphaned, but the copyright persists. There are also, apparently, a number of commercial organisations who do not want their code publshed.
Someone tried to open-source Unix a few years back - I *think* it was Sun, but I'm not certain. It turned out to be an intractable problem...
Vic.
[1] Memorandum Decision and Order
[2] Final Judgement
Would love you to justify this. Apple may now ship more UNIX(tm) systems than anybody else, but they own nothing of the UNIX IP.
OSX is a UNIX derived system, having taken the MACH kernel, married with bits of BSD (which is not branded), and then got UNIX 03 branding. This means that it passes the UNIX test suite, not that it has any UNIX IP in it.
> Apple may now ship more UNIX(tm) systems than anybody else
Doubt it. How many Apple servers are there? Not a lot.
How many set-top boxes, routers, GPS systems, super-computers etc etc run OS/X? None that I know of, so the number is likely to be insignificant if they even exist. Not to mention that according to IDC (quoted in http://www.latinospost.com/articles/19393/20130517/ios-vs-android-market-share-apple-google-mobile-operating-systems.htm), Android (i.e. Linux) is beating Apple hands down when it comes to units shipped.
Nope, Linux is far and away the most widely distributed operating system in the world, even if it's practically non-existent on the desktop.
There are nuances to this. Note that I said "UNIX(tm)" not UNIX-like.
Want to know the difference?
There is a set of verification test, owned by The Open Group (http://www.unix.org/), which tests a system for UNIX compliance. There have been several UNIX standards over the years, starting with SVID, through Posix 1003.X, UNIX 93, UNIX 95, UNIX 98 and most recently UNIX 03.
UNIX(tm) is a registered trade mark. Use of this mark to describe an operating system is restricted to those that have passed one or more of the test suites maintained by The Open Group.
OSX Mountain Lion has passed the UNIX 03 test suite. As has Solaris 10 and 11, HPUX 11i, and AIX 5.3 and 6.1. All of these operating systems can call themselves UNIX.
There are absolutely no Linux distributions that have passed any of the UNIX test suites, so legally, no Linux system can be called UNIX.
Two other quirks. There are no BSD systems that have been tested, so strictly, BSD is not UNIX (although there may be historical justification for BSD 4.4 and earlier) . But z/OS V2R1 (and some earlier versions) have been tested and passed against UNIX 95, so bizarrely, z/OS 2.1, an operating system that has little or no UNIX code in it can be called UNIX!
Now I don't know how many OSX systems have shipped in total compared to Solaris, HPUX and AIX systems, but in terms of new systems installed, I would hazard a guess that Apple are now shipping more OSX boxes than the other vendors are of their own brand of UNIX. And you can't count Linux.
This is why I said what I did.
Yes Unix is a trademark but AIX or Solaris or HP-UX are not called Unix as nobody wanted to pay for the name and it was not necessary either. AIX was written from scratch as IBM did not want to depend on AT&T then a big company. No copied code was found within Linux and SCO left that claim years ago. So we shall see what funny claims SCO has come up with this time. Oh dear.
You are so wrong in your suggestion that there is no AT&T code in AIX. Also, you are wrong about people wanting to pay for UNIX branding. Look at the Open Group website, and see which UNIX variants have been put through the various UNIX test suites (which costs quite a lot of money). IBM, Sun (as was), HP and Apple have all paid the money, and achieved the certification.
IBM has a SVR2 source license and AIX was very clearly derived from AT&T SVR2 code. It was not written from the ground up. I've worked in IBM and had access to the source code, and I have seen parts of the code that are clearly related to AT&T UNIX, complete with the required AT&T copyright notices. This was a long time ago (early '90s), but they were there.
For Power systems the current AIX can be traced back to AIX 3.1, released on the RISC System/6000 in 1990. AIX 3.1 itself was derived from the code that IBM had for the 6150 RT PC, and this was a direct port of SVR2, mainly by IBM but aided by the INTERACTIVE System Corporation, who had also worked on PC/IX for IBM. Reports of the Kernel (in places like Wikipedia) being written in PL/I or PL/8 refer to the VRM, not to the AIX kernel.
I admit that there has been a huge amount of code added in AIX over the years, but it is still a genetic UNIX. How much code is related? Maybe you should ask SCO. They've seen the AIX source.
The same is true for SunOS/Solaris. I was working for AT&T when SVR4 was released, and I can say with absolute certainty that Sun0S 4.0.1 was the same source code base (again, I had access to the source code) as AT&T's SVR4.
Sun were one of the principal members of UNIX International and the Unified UNIX programme that attempted to standardize UNIX in the late 1980's with AT&T, ICL, Amdahl and various other vendors long gone. I still have the notes from the developer conference. Prior to this release, SunOS 3 and earlier was based on BSD 4.2, with enhancements added from 4.3.
I am not so clear about HP-UX, but I know that HP had a direct UNIX V7 port on a system I'm sure was an HP 500 in the early 1980s, although I can't find any references (it was pre-Internet). Wikipedia says HP-UX was derived from System III. HP (and in fact IBM and DEC) were in the Open Software Foundation that was set up in opposition to the Unified UNIX. They had their own UNIX called OSF/1, which had a common code base that was taken from DEC and IBM versions of UNIX. The tension between UI and OSF was known as "The UNIX wars".
Time moves on, and of course there is no feedback from the vendors back into the main tree, so of course the different versions diverge, but I am sure it is safe to say that all three of these are genetic UNIXes, and they all have achieved UNIX branding at various levels. They can all be called UNIX as per the branding rules, but in this day an age, this is not really important. UNIX as a unified OS (much to my regret) is largely a has-been.
My biggest fear is that without some form of standardization (like the Linux Standards Base which is mostly ignored) Linux will go the same way.
Thanks Peter Gathercole. but perhaps one should remember that Unix was open for some time and I still believe IBM wanted to be free of any obligations towards AT&T. The history of Unix is an interesting one, as for Linux the kernel has not, as far as I know, gone anyway but straight forward as one Linux kernel. The code found in Linux was openly available too, some 70 lines (not actually code), while SCO spoke about a million lines.
I would actually dispute that UNIX(tm) has ever been Open, as we would think Linux or other GPL code is.
Yes, UNIX code source code has been available, but only under license. Versions (editions) 1-6 were available to academic users under a very permissive license, but one that prevented commercial use. At the time, Bell Labs/AT&T were prevented by a US anti-monopoly judgement from supplying commercial computers, and this included Operating Systems. At this time, there was a thriving pre-Open Source group of academic users who dabbled in the code, and shared their work with others. This was a really exciting time (I was there), and you often found 400' 1/2" tape reels being sent around (it was pre-networks) various Universities.
Version 7 tightened this up to prevent the source from being used as a teaching example. Version 7 and earlier code has, since 2002, been published under GPLv2, granted by Caldera (Horray!). This is now "Open", but I don't know of anybody who is shipping a commercial V7 implementation (although a free x86 port is freely available from a South African company called Nordier Associates).
Commercial use of UNIX post Version 7, from PWB to UnixWare was under a commercial license that did not contain any right to the source code. The same was true for all other-vendor UNIX systems. Source licenses were available, but under their own strict licensing conditions, and at a high cost (and often required the licensee to have an AT&T source licence as well!).
BSD code prior to BSD/Lite required the user to have an AT&T version 7 (or later) license. BSD/Lite or later does not contain any AT&T code (or at least nothing that AT&T were prepared to contest), so is available under the BSD license, but as I have stated before, cannot legally call itself UNIX.
Having got that out of the way, why was UNIX used as the basis for Open Systems?
Well, UNIX was always easy to port. This meant that there were several vendors (piggy-backing on various academic ports, like SUN and DEC) who could sell UNIX systems, meaning that application writers have something approaching a common base to target their code, although differences had to be worked around. This was unique. There was no other large-system operating system around at the time that had this.
It became apparent that if there could be a standardised subset of UNIX (commands, APIs, libraries) that all vendors would support, then this could mean that application writers could possibly entertain a "write-once, compile once per vendor UNIX, and sell" strategy. This was first championed by AT&T (who by this time were allowed to sell computers and operating systems) with the System V Interface Definition (SVID), which was adopted by IEEE, with minor changes, as the various POSIX 1003 standards.
These standards are what gave UNIX the "Open" label. Anybody could write an OS that met these standards, whether based on genetic UNIX code or not. This has resulted in numerous interesting products and projects, one of which is GNU/Linux (POSIX compliant, but not any later UNIX standard), and includes such things as QNX, BeOS and z/OS, which can be regarded as UNIX or UNIX-like, some of which are truly open. Not all of these can be called UNIX, however.
I agree about the Linux kernel. The reason why this has remained as a single kernel is because Linus keeps an iron hand on the kernel source tree and official release numbers. It is perfectly possible for someone to take this tree, and modify it (and it has been done by several people including IBM and Google) under the GPL, but they can't get their modifications back in to the main tree without Linus' agreement. They could maintain their own version, however, as long as they abide by the GPL. AFAIK, they can even still call it Linux.
> Version 7 and earlier code has, since 2002, been published under GPLv2, granted by Caldera
It is also likely that 32v (the port to VAX) is in the public domain.
> BSD/Lite or later does not contain any AT&T code (or at least nothing that AT&T were prepared to contest)
USL were contesting that but when Novell bought USL outright it settled and agreed that it would not contest BSD after certain conditions were met.
But the real point is that Unix probably does contain code written at Berkeley - as well as code written and contributed by many other parties. The likelihood is that there are no protectable copyrights in Unix at least to the point where Novel sold the Unixware business to SCO.
Oh. Yes. I forgot about 32v. That was in the same announcement.
BSD/Lite was, as far as I understand, BSD 4.4 with AT&T code removed/re-written. I think, although I am prepared to be corrected, that is the reason why it was called Lite.
UNIX does indeed contain code written at Berkeley. The obvious example is vi, although it would not surprise me if the paging code had something to do with BSD. As I understand it, there were relatively good relations between the Bell Labs. people and the Computing Labs people as Berkeley.
The networking code probably has not, because AT&T took the Wollongong TCP/IP code, and re-wrote most of it to use STREAMS/TLI.
But it does not matter how much code cam back from BSD, because the BSD license is a very permissive one that does little to restrict what the code is used for, provided it is acknowledged.
It is other contributors (which will mostly be companies working with AT&T) that may be more problematic, but I guess it depends on the contractual relationship between them and AT&T. The best place to look is probably the copyright notices in the header files for each release.
> The best place to look is probably the copyright notices in the header files for each release.
No, that's the worst place to look...
AT&T were exceptionally blase about copyright notices. That's quite a bit of what was behind the BSD scuffle, and part of the reason there are very few protectable copyrights left in Unix.
The whole thing is a tortuous mess. Although there may be no-one with the right to contest open-sourcing it, *proving* that would be nigh-on impossible...
Vic.
I agree that the header files are not necessarily authoritative, but unless you know somewhere else that is generally available, the header files may still be the best even if they are not very good.
Most people (and me, now) do not have access to any current UNIX source code. Generally speaking, although the temptation was there, I resisted taking snapshots of the various code when I left companies with source. I try to abide by the rules, even though in hindsight, I have often regretted being so 'moral'.
The only UNIX source code I have available to me now is the V6 Lyons commentary, and the V7 code that was freed up by Caldera.
When I wrote my previous comment, I had a bit of a dig around in the IBM AIX V7.1 include directories. I was very surprised to see almost no copyright notices to Bell Labs or AT&T (understandable), USL (I suppose that is understandable as well), or Novell, Caldera or SCO, and precious few to the Regents of the University of California at Berkeley.
It looks like IBM have been cleaning up the copyright notices over the years.
I am currently not working on any other platform to check.
You seem to have managed to get everything wrong.
> Yes Unix is a trademark but AIX or Solaris or HP-UX are not called Unix
> as nobody wanted to pay for the name and it was not necessary either.
From opengroup.org:
"""NEW UNIX 03 CERTIFICATION FOR IBM Corporation
We are very pleased to announce that on September 1, 2006,
IBM registered the following system as conforming
to the UNIX 03 Product Standard.
-- AIX 5L for POWER V5.3 dated 7-2006 or later
on systems using CHRP system architecture with
POWER(tm) processors"""
From Oracle.com:
"""Oracle Solaris 11
The First Cloud OS
Brings the reliability, security and scalability of the #1 UNIX OS to the enterprise cloud ..."""
They do 'pay for the name', and use it.
> AIX was written from scratch
Completely untrue. IBM had a licence from AT&T for AIX and paid royalties on every copy _because_ it was based on SVRx. Later they bought a 'fully paid up and perpetual licence' so that they no longer need to pay royalties. It was this licence that SCO attempted to cancel.
> No copied code was found within Linux and SCO left that claim years ago.
Not true. There is code within Linux that is similar, or even the same, as code within Unix. This is because they both have code from BSD (which is perfectly legitimate).
"WHY SO UNSERIOUS?"
Well you can't be too careful with American lawyers.
I would not want to be accused of inciting murder for hire now, would I?
Although you do have to wonder if something were to happen to them who would care?
And as for the suspect pool, that would be in the millions of individuals, not to mention several large corporations.
I can't help recall that line in Enemy of the State "We pay 100s of 1000s of $ to scumbag lawyers like you because of scumbag lawyers like you."
People who knew how things where are perhaps gone, lawyers will be new and "empty" headed. Pamela is the only person with all the facts. And I suppose SCO will again try for a 50/50 chance with a jury.
No icon as there is nothing ugly enough to express my feelings for SCO and its backers.
Back then, Darl McBride could be heard one TV channel and Baghdad Bob could be heard on another. Only one of them was good and deserves to enter the history books.
The bankruptcy administrators of SCO (or "asset strippers", more accurately) got permission to delete and shred lots of paperwork a while back. Thus there will be no evidence that SCO have no case left. I can see the SCOundrels asking for a restart, including full discovery again.
They won't get it, in a normal world, but this is SCO - a parallel dimension where truth is mutable.
"Don't be: if SCO can eventually prove it really, truly does own a critical bit of Unix it's a chance of saying it therefore owns that same bit in Linux. And given that world+dog runs Linux – a couple of billion Android devices for starters – if SCO wins it can start throwing sueballs at the Googles, IBMs and Red Hats of the world and cash in big time."
SCO acquired certain Unix properties from Novell and Caldera and announces their intention of promoting under the UnitedLinux umbrella. Under the leadership of Darl McBride, SCO withdraws from UnitedLinux and announces the intention of sueing some of its former colleges. SCO firstly claimed ownership of certain source code produced in co-operaton with IBM and old-SCO, Project Monterey.
When asked to produce such codes, SCO failed to do so despite the source being available under the GPL for years previously. SCO then changed tack and claimed there was SCO code in the Linux kernel, if so, then why isn't SCO sueing the kernel developers. SCO has been in litigation with AutoZone, DaimlerChrysler, Red Hat, IBM and Novell at some stage, neither of which paid a cent to SCO. The net effect of the case has been to inject Fear Uncertainity and Doubt into the Linux business. The real story is who was financing SCO these past eighteen years.
"Williams: Well, there's something I don't understand, which is that Linux is open source, and the source is openly available, so can you not just go to a source repository and pull up a file and say, "Here, you guys stole that from our intellectual property. This is where it is." You can point at it because you don't need to wait for IBM to provide it, do you?"
"McBride: Well, it's a little bit ..." link
--
"The month of June is show-and-tell time," McBride said. "Everybody's been clamoring for the code...and we're going to show hundreds of lines of code." link
io_uring is getting more capable, and PREEMPT_RT is going mainstream The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
