[TUHS] TUHS Digest, Vol 35, Issue 4

M. Warner Losh imp at bsdimp.com
Thu Nov 30 15:53:44 AEST 2006

In message: <20061130022644.GA31524 at bitmover.com>
            lm at bitmover.com (Larry McVoy) writes:
: > for new code (and Sys V is mostly new enough, unlike Unix V32) after
: Hmm.  I'm coming into this late so maybe I'm not seeing the full context.
: If the statement is that V32 != Sys V I have to disagree, I've read all
: of 32V source (kernel and user and I mean all of it.  It's not like I
: had deep understanding of every line but my eyes have seen every line 
: of code in 32V, it's not that big).  I've also read large chunks of 
: Sys V - not all of it, but depending on the release, fairly large
: chunks, like 80% or more.

One of the preliminary rulings in the AT&T vs BSD lawsuit was that
there was extreme doubt as to whether or not there was a copyright on
32V Unix.  It was widely distributed without copyright notices before
the Berne Convention did way with the need to have copyright notices
to protect the copyright of a work.  Since there was nothing done to
protect or recall the copies without the copyright notice, under the
law at that time the copyright would have been lost.  I'm equivocating
here because there never was a final ruling.  The case was settled
before that happened, with many speculating that the main reason for
settlement was this ruling.

: The idea that most stuff was rewritten in Sys V is not true, not even
: slightly true.  I dunno if that is what is being claimed but if it is
: that's silly.  Most of the stuff is the same, especially in userspace
: but also in the kernel, tons of the kernel is unchanged.

That never was the claim.


More information about the TUHS mailing list