[Simh] Simulated PDP-7 Unix V0?

[Clem Cole]

gad dyslexia sucks... the sentence was supposed to say:   This is true for
all UNIX implementations, including the UNIX-like/work alikes from Idris,
Coherent, Sol, and Linux
ᐧ

On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 10:38 AM Clem Cole <clemc at ccc.com> wrote:

> below...
>
> On Wed, Sep 5, 2018 at 7:36 AM Al Kossow <aek at bitsavers.org> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/18 4:24 AM, Al Kossow wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > So the newer UNIXes are in the clear.  I doubt anyone actually cares
>> about
>> > version 0 either, but technically it's still under copyright.
>>
>> http://digital-law-online.info/lpdi1.0/treatise17.html
>>
>> I don't think that is true since it predates the 1976 removal of the
>> requirement
>> for computer programs having to be registered with the Copyright office,
>> and
>> we know Unix didn't even have WE copyrights on the code until much later.
>>
>> Anything he created as replacements are, though.
>>
>> Hopefully, those are appropriately licensed.
>
>
> Anything before and including V7 is covered by the Ancient UNIX license.
> At one time you needed to get you own and a number fo us have them, but at
> one point Novell (the eventual legal owner of the IP and the copyrights)
> removed that restriction and the original code is availble (although it
> should be attributed).     I probably can dig up all this from email et
> al.. If Warren does not have a section "Front and Center" on TUHS web site,
> I'll work with him. The PWB world (PWB 1.0- SRV4) was ittle different BTW.
>  PWB 1.0 and 2.0 kernals were based on V6 and V7 and AT&T (before Novell)
> has agreed that they were covered under the original Ancient license.
> PWB 3.0 aka System III and later were released as part of the IBM/Linux law
> suite when it was discovered that Novell owned the IP rights.
>
> One more thing, which is off topic for simh, which I'll add before some
> gets all worked up (and again, take it off list), the intellectual property
> (IP) and the code itself are different.   AT&T owned the IP, which was
> described in the code, which had a copyright.   They published *the IP in
> the open literature*.   In the AT&T vs. UCB/BSDi cash the courts were
> clear -- AT&T owned the IP but ... they could not claim trade secret on it
> because they published it (the case was a trade secret case not a copyright
> case).  The different code bases (the implementations) are covered by the
> licenses associated with their copyrights, but are under the rules of IP
> ownership.   This is true for all UNIX implementations, including the
> UNIX-like/work alikes from Idris, Coherent, Sol, UNIX.  Thus the provenance
> of the code itself is only interesting as to which copyrights it covered.
> The courts were clear: the UNIX IP (the core ideas) are 100% 'free'
> (open/libre) since AT&T published it opennling starting in the early 1970s.
>
> I have a fairly long treastise on much of this in a paper I published last
> fall at History of Unix symposium - Paris, France, October 19th 2017
> http://technique-societe.cnam.fr/colloque-international-unix-en-france-et-aux-etats-unis-innovation-diffusion-et-appropriation--945215.kjsp
> [note the web site is in french.  my paper is not, althought some of them
> are].  Send me email off line if you want a copy of the PDF.
>
> Been there, lived it, and have the tee shirts to prove it - at least ones
> by wife has not thrown out as too ratty ;-)
> Clem
>
> ᐧ
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.trailing-edge.com/pipermail/simh/attachments/20180905/a214ce33/attachment-0001.html>