Larry’s question about PWB made me think it might be useful to this list
for some of this to be written down.
When you write the story of UNIX, licensing is a huge part of it (both good
and bad). As I have tried to explain before the 1956 consent decree and
the later 1980 Judge Green ruling, as well as how the AT&T legal department
set up the licenses really cast huge shadows that almost seem trite today;
but seem to have been forgotten.
In fact later licensing would become so important, one of the more infamous
UNIX wars was based on it (if you go back to the original OSF Founding
Principles – two of them are ‘Fair and Stable Licensing Terms’). As we
all know, because of the original 1956 decree, AT&T was not allowed to be
in the computer business and so when people came calling both to use it
(Academically and Commercially) and to relicense it; history has shown that
AT&T’s management killed the golden goose. I’d love to hear the views of
Doug, Steve, Ken and other who were inside looking out.
FWIW: These are my thoughts from an Academic and Commercial user back in
the day. AT&T’s management was clearly concerned about the consent decree
and the original licenses show it. UNIX was licensed for free to academic
institutions for research use (sans a small tape copying fee) and the bits
were ‘abandoned on your door step.’ This style of license, along with
the publishing of the ideas behind really did get the ideas out and the
academic community loved it. We used it and we were able to share
everything.
The academic license was fine until people want to start to use in a
commercial setting (Rand Corp). Again, AT&T legal is worried about being
perceived in the computer business, so the original commercial use license
shows it. AT&T licensing basically uses the academic license but add the
ability to actually use it for commercial purposes. Then the first
Universities start to want to use UNIX more like a commercial system [Dan
Klein and I would go on strike and force CMU to purchase first commercial
use license for an Academic setting, following by Case Western].
As AT&T management realized the UNIX IP did seem to be some value, just
like the transistor had been earlier, it seems like they wanted to find a
way to keep it under their control. I remember having a dinner
conversation with Dennis at a USENIX about this topic. Steve has expressed
they told many folks to treated it as a ‘trade secret’ (which is strange to
me since the cat as already out of the bag by then and the ideas (IP)
behind UNIX had already been extensively published (we even had USENIX
formed to discuss ideas).
By the time Judge Green allows AT&T to be in the computer business I think
AT&T management completely misunderstood the value of what they had. The
AT&T legal team had changed the commercial rules in every new UNIX release
a new license was created, and thus firms like DEC, HP, IBM *et al* were
getting annoyed because they had begun to invest in the technology
themselves and the feeling inside of those firms was that AT&T management
was changing the ground rules after the game started.
IMO a funny thing happened (bad karma), it seems like the tighter AT&T
management seems to try to control things in the UNIX community, the less
control the community gave them. Clearly, the new features of the
technology started to be driven by BSD. But the license was the one place
they could control and they tried. In fact, by the time of the SVR4 it
all came to a head and OSF was formed because most firms were unwilling to
give AT&T the kind of control they were asking in the that license [as
Larry has previously expressed, Sun made a Faustian deal WRT to SVR4]. In
the end, the others were shipping from an SVR3 license or had bought it
out.
> From: Clem cole
> Thinking about this typesetter C may have been later with ditroff.
Not so sure about that; we had that C at MIT, but only regular troff (which
had been hacked to drive a Varian).
> From: Arnold Skeeve
> It seems to be shortly after the '78 release of V7.
No, typesetter C definitely pre-dated V7. The 'PWB1' system at MIT had the new
C.
Looking at the documentation files for the extension (e.g. addition of
'long's), none of them have dates in them (alas), but my hard-copy printout of
one is dated "May 8 1978", and it was several years old at that point.
(Also, several sources give '79 for V7 - Salus says 'June 1979').
Noel
> From: Clem Cole
> Their is a open question about the need to support self modifying code
> too. I personally don't think of that as important as the need for
> conditional instructions which I do think need to be there before you
> can really call it a computer.
Here's one way to look at it: with conditional branching, one can always
write a program to _emulate_ a machine with self-modifying code (if that's
what floats your boat, computing-wise) - because that's exactly what older,
simple microcoded machines (which don't, of course, have self-modifying code
- their programs are in ROM) do.
Noel
Way back on this day in 1941, Conrad Zuse unveiled the Z3; it was the
first programmable automatic computer as we know it (Colossus 1 was not
general-purpose). The last news I heard about the Z3 was that she was
destroyed in an air-raid...
This pretty much started computing, as we know it.
-- Dave
All, in case you haven't seen it:
https://www.ioccc.org/2018/mills/
This is a PDP-7 emulator in C, enough to run PDP-7 Unix. But the author
has written a PDP-11 emulator in PDP-7 assembly, and uses this to run
2.9BSD on the emulated PDP-7 :-)
Cheers, Warren
>From: jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Cc: jnc(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] Who used *ROFF?
>Message-ID: <20180512110127.0B81418C08E(a)mercury.lcs.mit.edu>
>
<snip>
>Are you familiar with the description in Dennis M. Ritchie, "The Evolution of
>the Unix Time-sharing System":
>
> https://www.bell-labs.com/usr/dmr/www/hist.htm
>
<snip>
Please note the URL should end with ".html", not ".htm"
I wasted 5 minutes (insert big grin) wondering why I got an 404 like
404 Not Found
Code: NoSuchKey
Message: The specified key does not exist.
Key: hist.htm
RequestId: 454E36190753F99C
HostId: 6EJTsEdvnbnAr4VO7+mxSWH+dcX8X6AGRLZxwOLha/9q5G2CAxsVbEw6aMF+NHIPbhrAQ+/t/8o=
Hardly ever use notepad, hardly ever used notepad. Especially since I
discovered notepad++ many years ago ( https://notepad-plus-plus.org )
Of course, I use what is handy for what I'm doing. 'vim' I use when I
want to do some 'manipulation :-)
Does anyone know why UUCP "bag" files are called "bag"?
Seeing as this relates to unix-to-unix-copy, I figured that someone on
TUHS might have an idea.
Thanks in advance.
--
Grant. . . .
unix || die
