20 Sep
2007
20 Sep
'07
1:48 p.m.
lm(a)bitmover.com wrote:
Does anyone out there have a machine or a tape?
I'm looking for the
lint libraries I wrote, there were posix, psd, xpg*, etc. I was pretty
focussed, back in the day, on making it easy for people to write code
that could port easily. These days nobody cares about that stuff but
I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about
how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.
Thanks,
--lm
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3, and 3x can be found
at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/
20 Sep
20 Sep
5:22 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Thu, Sep 20, 2007 at 07:48:29AM -0600, Andrew Warkentin wrote:
>that could port easily. These days nobody cares
about that stuff but
>I'd like a copy of those lint libs. If you don't get why think about
>how hard it is to care if it is a char* or a void* or an int or a long.
Old versions of SunOS from 2.0 to 4.1.1for Sun 2, 3,
and 3x can be found
at http://www.sun3arc.org and http://www.soupwizard.com/sun2/
AH!
and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ?
--
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]
21 Sep
21 Sep
2:44 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On 20 Sep 2007, at 18:22, asbesto wrote:
and - what about their licenses ? are they free to use/install ?
From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a
license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines
- certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra
licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.
Obviously that's not true any more.
Of course you should check the license.
--tim
2:58 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
From memory (fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then
you had a
license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines
- certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra
licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.
Obviously that's not true any more.
The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
as an open source license).
Of course you should check the license.
There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come
with a machine-readable license.
--
LEAR: Dost thou call me fool, boy? John Cowan
FOOL: All thy other titles http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
thou hast given away: cowan(a)ccil.org
That thou wast born with.
4:41 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 10:58:06AM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
and ... what for older versions of SLOWlaris ? :)
p.s.
why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
--
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]
From memory
(fairly old memory) if you had a Sun then you had a
license to run SunOS. This possibly applies only to smaller machines
- certainly later on (in the Solaris era) you had to buy extra
licenses for machines with more than a few (1? 2?) processors.
Obviously that's not true any more.
The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
as an open source license).
4:46 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
asbesto scripsit:
why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in
this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto
--
John Cowan cowan(a)ccil.org http://ccil.org/~cowan
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing
on my shoulders.
--Hal Abelson
4:48 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or rather: "don't take assume
this is correct, but ask Sun if you care". I was just trying to
absolve myself of responsibility, basically.
--tim
The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
as an open source license).
I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
still have it?)
Of course you should check the license.
There's nothing to check -- in those days SunOS didn't come
with a machine-readable license.
5:12 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
I'm assuming that the source isn't available
at all (I wonder if Sun
still have it?)
There are places where it can be found, he said darkly.
I think I meant "ask someone at Sun", or
rather: "don't take assume
this is correct, but ask Sun if you care". I was just trying to
absolve myself of responsibility, basically.
That was tried, but nobody at Sun would take responsibility, until finally
someone at Sun Germany said "Okay to use it for non-commercial use".
--
John Cowan http://ccil.org/~cowan cowan(a)ccil.org
All "isms" should be "wasms". --Abbie
5:14 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198(a)tfeb.org>
Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes:
: On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
:
: >
: > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > as an open source license).
:
: I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
: still have it?)
SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be
difficult at best.
Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for
details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
Warner
5:22 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
AH.
So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
don't use Reply-To :D
OK :)
--
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]
why isn't
"reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto 
5:23 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote:
p.s.
why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
Be careful! Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death
and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to!
[ob-smiley: ;) ]
-Seth
5:29 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
In message: <20070921172202.GB12148(a)freaknet.org>
asbesto <asbesto(a)freaknet.org> writes:
: Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 12:46:29PM -0400, John Cowan wrote:
:
: > > why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
: > > always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
: > http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto
:
: AH.
:
: So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
: don't use Reply-To :D
:
: OK :)
All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field. It is actually quite
common.
Warner
5:30 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
System III and System V.
To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense
for anything later than 32V.
In message:
<102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198(a)tfeb.org>
Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes:
: On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
:
: >
: > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > as an open source license).
:
: I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
: still have it?)
SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be
difficult at best.
Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for
details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
Warner
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
5:47 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
A worthy warning. For those of us with more gray hair,
the Unix/VMS battles of 1983 were very bloody.
On Sep 21, 2007, at 9:41 AM, asbesto wrote:
p.s.
why isn't "reply-to" correctly set in this list? replying will
always reply to the sender, not to the list :(
Be careful! Only the great emacs vs. vi wars have caused more death
and destruction than the debate over mailing list reply-to!
[ob-smiley: ;) ]
-Seth
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
6:24 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693(a)coraid.com>
Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> writes:
: BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
: or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
: Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
: System III and System V.
:
: To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
: which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense
: for anything later than 32V.
True. When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to
distribute. With that license came the System V streams stuff, which
Sun included in SunOS 4. There was much other technology from other
third parties in SunOS. Just doing an audit of what came from where
would be expensive and time consuming...
It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix
license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what
their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic
for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.
Warner
: > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198(a)tfeb.org>
: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes:
: > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > : > as an open source license).
: > :
: > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
: > : still have it?)
: >
: > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
: > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
: > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be
: > difficult at best.
: >
: > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
: > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for
: > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
: >
: > Warner
: > _______________________________________________
: > TUHS mailing list
: > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
: > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
:
: _______________________________________________
: TUHS mailing list
: TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
: https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
:
:
7:11 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Fri, Sep 21, 2007 at 11:29:42AM -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: >
http://linuxmafia.com/~rick/faq/index.php?page=netiquette#replyto
: So this is the only list I know in the entire Internet that
: don't use Reply-To :D
: OK :)
All the FreeBSD lists lack a reply-to field. It is actually quite
common.
ahahahah! :) I will *not* start a flame war on this list, please!
:)
--
[ 73 de IW9HGS : freaknet medialab : radiocybernet : poetry hacklab]
[ http://freaknet.org/asbesto - http://papuasia.org/radiocybernet ]
[ NON SCRIVERMI USANDO LETTERE ACCENTATE! - NON MANDARMI ALLEGATI ]
[ *I DELETE* EMAIL > 100K, ATTACHMENTS, HTML, M$-WORD DOC and SPAM ]
8:58 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com> wrote:
In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693(a)coraid.com>
Brantley Coile <brantley(a)coraid.com> writes:
: BSD never used anything that would have been covered by the System III
: or System V license. The ancient Unix license would be fine for that.
: Howver, I'm pretty sure there is a lot of stuff in SunOS 4 that was from
: System III and System V.
:
: To restate, BSD *.* is legal under the Ancient Unix license,
: which covers 32V and earlier. Berkeley never had a liscense
: for anything later than 32V.
True. When Sun took BSD 4.2, it had to buy a license from AT&T to
distribute. With that license came the System V streams stuff, which
Sun included in SunOS 4. There was much other technology from other
third parties in SunOS. Just doing an audit of what came from where
would be expensive and time consuming...
It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively apply the Ancient Unix
license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what
their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic
for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.
Warner
: > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198(a)tfeb.org>
: > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes:
: > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
: > :
: > : >
: > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
: > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
: > : > as an open source license).
: > :
: > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
: > : still have it?)
: >
: > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
: > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
: > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be
: > difficult at best.
: >
: > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
: > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for
: > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
: >
: > Warner
: > _______________________________________________
: > TUHS mailing list
: > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
: > https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
:
: _______________________________________________
: TUHS mailing list
: TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
: https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
:
:
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
https://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
Ah well, when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps the folks from Utah
will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun)
--
--
d|i|g|i|t|a|l had it THEN. Don't you wish you could still buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com
22 Sep
22 Sep
9:32 a.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On Saturday 22 September 2007 08:58, Bill Pechter wrote:
On 9/21/07, M. Warner Losh <imp(a)bsdimp.com>
wrote:
> In message: <9552c7c8500326acee33a5cbe54df693(a)coraid.com>
>
<snip>
> It is unclear to me if Sun could retroactively
apply the Ancient Unix
> license or not given the code's derivation history. I don't know what
> their specific agreements with AT&T stipulate. Again, another topic
> for research, unless Novell is willing to grant a waver.
>
> Warner
>
> : > In message: <102AD3A8-168F-4407-9FA1-86CB2B97A198(a)tfeb.org>
> : >
> : > Tim Bradshaw <tfb(a)tfeb.org> writes:
> : > : On 21 Sep 2007, at 15:58, John Cowan wrote:
> : > : > The best available story for the Sun3 code is that Sun doesn't
> : > : > object to non-commercial use (which certainly is not the same
> : > : > as an open source license).
> : > :
> : > : I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if
> : > : Sun still have it?)
> : >
> : > SunOS for the Sun3 machines was derived from BSD 4.2 with a lot of
> : > code from other places. BSD 4.2 requires an AT&T license because
> : > there is still AT&T code in it. As such, open sourcing it would be
> : > difficult at best.
> : >
> : > Based on what friends that work at sun tell me, the source can still
> : > be obtained internally if necessary... I never pressed them for
> : > details on the rather curious way they put it (like I did just now).
> : >
> : > Warner
<snip>
Ah well, when the Novell SCO stuff winds down perhaps
the folks from Utah
will OpenSource it. (my second guess is sell it to Sun)
Well, FWIW, I asked them last year in relation to OSF/1 and the requirement
for an AT&T license, and I got a reply from Bill Dunford. I think the best
thing to do would be to approach (semi-officially) the relevant companies and
ask (politely ;).
Wesley Parish
This is my email and the reply:
Hi Wesley,
I have no immediate answer to this, but I've directed your question to
people who will be able to respond. If for some reason you don't find
out what you're looking for, please let me know.
Bill
>> Wesley Parish
<wes.parish(a)paradise.net.nz> 07/23/06 11:01 PM >>>
Hi.
I understand that Novell's background actions helped The Unix Heritage
Society
preserve and distribute the Ancient Unix and *BSD code, by permitting
the Santa
Cruz Operation to waive the System V license requirement in the
earlier
pre- 4.4BSD- Lite BSD distributions.
I'm interested in getting hold of the OSF/1 June 1994 source code
release for
The Unix Heritage Society, being a member of that amorphous body. I
have been
informed by the Open Group that it requires the OSF/1 licensee to have
a System
V license.
Would it be possible for Novell at some stage, maybe when this farce
with The
SCO Group has run its course, to direct the Open Group to waive the
System V
license requirement for OSF/1?
Thanks
Wesley Parish
--
Clinersterton beademung, with all of love - RIP James Blish
-----
Gaul is quartered into three halves. Things which are
impossible are equal to each other. Guerrilla
warfare means up to their monkey tricks.
Extracts from "Schoolboy Howlers" - the collective wisdom
of the foolish.
-----
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.
25 Sep
25 Sep
1:52 a.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
I'm assuming that the source isn't available
at all (I wonder if Sun
still have it?)
It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.
--
We call nothing profound cowan(a)ccil.org
that is not wittily expressed. John Cowan
--Northrop Frye (improved)
2:06 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400
John Cowan <cowan(a)ccil.org> wrote:
Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
The funny thing, if I did read correctly the filings and agreements from
Groklaw is that a legal third party could probably release this code
*legally* if it is *acually* available.
I'm talking about something that popped up in the SCO vs IBM case: as I
remember, the agreement stated that IBM was required to held confidential
all information except in the case it had been made widely available by
some third party.
I'm assuming that the source isn't
available at all (I wonder if Sun
still have it?)
It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.
The exception is set forth in Section 7.06(a) of the
standard software agreement:
If information relating to a SOFTWARE PRODUCT subject to this Agreement at any
time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not
attributable to LICENSEE or its employees, LICENSEE'S obligations under this
section shall not apply to such information after such time.
Thus it seems possible that UNIX source code licensees would -in the case the
code had been made available *by others* have no longer obligation to keep it
confidential.
But, and this is IMPORTANT, IANAL, so don't take my word for it. My guess is
that even if so, most licensses will be reluctant to take any action without
legal counsel, which is costly and unless they had a compelling reason to,
they would therefore rather not ask, not act and not risk.
j
--
These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!
José R. Valverde
De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
2:38 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
In message: <20070925160647.65053bd4(a)veda.cnb.uam.es>
"Jose R. Valverde" <jrvalverde(a)cnb.uam.es> writes:
: On Mon, 24 Sep 2007 21:52:47 -0400
: John Cowan <cowan(a)ccil.org> wrote:
: > Tim Bradshaw scripsit:
: >
: > > I'm assuming that the source isn't available at all (I wonder if Sun
: > > still have it?)
: >
: > It is not *legally* available, but it is *actually* available.
: > Like, say, _The Lord of the Rings_ in HTML.
Chances are in this case copying just the lint libraries is completely
legal. Why do I say this?
First, the lint libraries are unlikely to qualify for copyright
protection in the first place. Their contents are dictated almost
entirely by external factors. This is the same reason that you can't
effectively copyright header files or interfaces. Standard copyright
infringement analysis requires removal of all portions that are
dictated by external factors.
Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright protection because
there's not enough creative content in these files. While they may be
pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to
qualify for copyright protection. The phone book doesn't qualify,
even if it is correct, for example. This would be especially true
after all those parts of the code which were dictated by external
factors.
Even if after these tests you discover that there could be copyright
protection on this work, copying just these files likely would be fair
use. First, these files are useless without a lint program. Second,
these files are a tiny portion of the entire SunOS system. Third,
they aren't being put to commercial use (at least not directly).
Forth, they would be used for education purposes. These tests are the
ones that educators are taught to apply when photocopying articles for
use in the classroom.
So I'm saying it would likely be completely legal for Larry to show
these files to his colleges as an example of extreme attention to
detail, and legal for him to copy them to do so. For other purposes,
it is less clear. I've also grossly simplified things, and I'm not a
lawyer, so if you are worried, competent legal advise should be
obtained.
Warner
3:37 p.m.
New subject: SunOS 4.1.1?
M. Warner Losh scripsit:
Next, it is unlikely to qualify for copyright
protection because
there's not enough creative content in these files. While they may be
pedantically correct, their contents may not be creative enough to
qualify for copyright protection. The phone book doesn't qualify,
even if it is correct, for example.
True in the U.S., which uses the "originality" standard; false in the
U.K., which uses the "sweat of the brow" standard.
IANAL; TINLA.
--
Said Agatha Christie / To E. Philips Oppenheim John Cowan
"Who is this Hemingway? / Who is this Proust? cowan(a)ccil.org
Who is this Vladimir / Whatchamacallum, http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
This neopostrealist / Rabble?" she groused.
--George Starbuck, Pith and Vinegar
6062
days inactive
6067
days old
21 comments
10 participants
participants (10)
-
Andrew Warkentin -
asbesto -
Bill Pechter -
Brantley Coile -
John Cowan -
Jose R. Valverde -
M. Warner Losh -
Seth Morabito -
Tim Bradshaw -
Wesley Parish