[TUHS] History of cal(1)?

[segaloco via TUHS]

Sent with Proton Mail secure email.

On Thursday, September 25th, 2025 at 20:18, Warner Losh via TUHS <tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Sep 25, 2025, 8:08 PM segaloco via TUHS tuhs at tuhs.org wrote:
> 
> > On Thursday, September 25th, 2025 at 17:23, jason-tuhs--- via TUHS <
> > tuhs at tuhs.org> wrote:
> > 
> > > > Heck; at one time the "true" command was a Shell script with a huge
> > > > copyright notice, followed by... nothing... (The "false" script
> > > > actually had "exit 1" at the end.)
> > > 
> > > From http://web.42.net/true.html
> > 
> > ==========================================================================
> > 
> > > cat /bin/true
> > > 
> > > # Copyright (c) 1984, 1986, 1987, 1988, 1989 AT&T;
> > > # All Rights Reserved
> > > 
> > > # THIS IS UNPUBLISHED PROPRIETARY SOURCE CODE OF AT&T;
> > > # The copyright notice above does not evidence any
> > > # actual or intended publication of such source code.
> > > 
> > > #ident "@(#)true.sh 1.6 93/01/11 SMI" /* SVr4.0 1.4 */
> > > 
> > > I'm not sure what I like most. The fact that they're claiming strict
> > > copyright on a file that is all comments? The fact that they're up to
> > > version 1.6 of all-comments, after five years of development? Or the fact
> > > that the GNU version had to be rewritten (due to the above copyright),
> > > and
> > > thus actually offers three times as much functionality?
> > 
> > ==========================================================================
> > 
> > > -Jason
> > 
> > So assuming the whole text of the program after the copyright statement
> > itself as well as the source control statements is truly AT&T
> > property...does that mean AT&T lays copyright to the empty file? I jest
> > but it is an interesting suggestion.
> 
> 
> I think this credits too much intentionality... but you can't copyright
> nothing, despite the claims here. There's no creative content.
> 
> Also, we all know this was done by the sed-o-matic on every file without
> thinking. So from that perspective, it's not additive to nothing...
> 
> It also brought to mind the question of whether a UNIX superblock for
> 
> > instance could be placed under copyright? The files on the disk, sure, but
> > since you can't easily put elaborate license comments at the top of the
> > filesystem itself, is filesystem metadata inherently "un-copyright-able"?
> > Mostly interested in UNIX filesystems on this subject but if other systems
> > or general wisdom prevail in the discussion then that bit can fork to COFF.
> 
> 
> Not applicable. The instance of the data and its structure cannot be
> copyright. It's an idea. The header file that describes it can be
> copyright. But I can write an equivalent one too (whether or not I saw the
> original). Not all books about white whales are owned by the estate of
> Herman Melville...
> 
> So fs.h can be copyrighted to a degree. All the comments are copyrightable.
> The data structures enjoy somewhat less copyright protection. The structure
> names and element names may have some copyright, or may not if the names
> are important for interop. Some may be common data structures that are too
> common. You wouldn't know for sure until the end of any litigation.
> 
> It's the uncertainty that drives people to the maximalist position. I know
> I won't get in trouble if I never look...
> 
> Warner
> 
> - Matt G.

I meant more along the lines of a specific disk, a physical instance.  Barring some ability to pursue damages on theft or something, imagine for instance using copyright law to prohibit distribution of some snapshot of a filesystem header, on the grounds that even the directory information has been claimed as under copyright by the owner of that physical piece of media.  Indeed this is in the weeds but just felt like an amusing parallel to the idea of copyrighting an empty file.  It's a construct more than it is original, intentional content.  To oversimplify it, could the output from ls(1) in a directory be copyrighted by the person who happened to type "ls"?

- Matt G.