|
UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey |
|
Friday, June 16 2006 @ 05:21 PM EDT
|
UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle
~ by Dr. Peter H. Salus and Warren K. Toomey, The UNIX Heritage Society
Recently, The SCO Group has asserted that IBM negligently leaked
the methods and concepts in UNIX. What The SCO Group fails to realize
is that, from day one, the methods and concepts in UNIX were out
in the open. And, as AT&T found out when UNIX was commercialized,
staunching the leakage of UNIX methods and concepts was like putting
the proverbial genie back into the bottle.
Throughout the 1970-1980 decade, AT&T made no secret of the UNIX
source code. After the system became "public," following the SOSP
paper in October 1973 (and its publication in the July 1974
Communications of the ACM), there were many requests from outside
AT&T for the new OS. The SOSP paper was itself very revealing of
the UNIX methods and concepts, and AT&T at the time (following a
consent decree) was obliged to confine its business to "telegraphy
and telephony" and not to sell software products, but to license
UNIX on a very open basis.
What the requesters received, from Ken Thompson and (later) from
Irma Biren, was a 10" tape or a disk pack with the bits of 3rd
Edition UNIX, or 4th, or 5th, or 6th. All the bits, not what we'd
call a binary version, but the source. And many recipients just
printed it out. The disk pack frequently came with a handwritten
note: "Here's your RK05 , Love Ken"; on the tape that Lou Katz
received, the note read: "Here's the tape, if it craps out, I'll
cut another."
Further, from the beginning, Thompson would talk about the system
and its code: for example, at the "UNIX Users' Meeting" at Columbia
University on May 15, 1974. There were no barriers, no bars, no
hurdles. And every site had full source.
It is important to note that UNIX was never a static system, and
the userbase found it immensely useful to have the source code, so
that the system could be fixed, and enhanced to suit the users at
each individual site. Examples include the AUSAM system, developed
at UNSW in Australia, and the early BSDs. The changes made by the
users often found their way back into the main UNIX development
tree. Significant portions of AUSAM code were still visible in
System V in the late 1980s.
With a malleable OS in the hands of the users, including the source
code, the users found the urge to exchange home-grown bug fixes and
improvements to the system. Beginning in mid-1976, the UNIX Users'
Group mailed out tapes of the "software exchange." The first was
announced in the May-June "UNIX NEWS," the second followed in
November, the third in May-June 1977. AT&T's attitude forced the
users to exchange knowledge with one another. Mel Ferentz (then
publisher of "UNIX NEWS") was driven to initiate the exchange, and
Mike O'Brien (then a graduate student) to implement it.
Another avenue for the exchange of home-grown methods and concepts
was at the annual UNIX User Group (later USENIX) conferences, where
everybody bought two tapes, one full of new programs, device drivers
and system patches, and the other tape empty (over 150 attendees
at the May 1977 meeting in Urbana, IL).
After the creation of USENET in late 1979, the net.v6bugs and
net.v7bugs newsgroups were formed so that users could exchange bug
fixes on-line in the form of patches. These newsgroups were quite
active, thus "leaking" many lines of original UNIX code.
Even the UNIX developers aided and abetted the free exchange of
methods and concepts: Ken Thompson took a sabbatical at University
of California, Berkeley where he introduced UNIX and it methods and
concepts to the staff and students.
Then there is the case of the "50 bugs" tape. By the late 1970s,
AT&T had started to impose more restrictive conditions in its UNIX
licenses, stifling the exchange of UNIX code between licensees. The
licenses also did not include the ability to obtain bug fixes from
AT&T. The researchers at Bell Labs had found and fixed a significant
number of bugs in UNIX, and Ken Thompson had tried to get the patches
out, but the lawyers kept stalling him. Eventually, a tape with the
patches was "found" by Lou Katz and Reidar Bornholdt on Mountain
Avenue (the road leading to the Labs). Ken also "inadvertently"
left an image of the tape at the University of Illinois, when
visiting on his way to Berkeley, and another at Berkeley.
While the ability to exchange code was being limited, the same was
not true for the distribution of methods and concepts. The distribution
of John Lions' commentary on 6th Edition UNIX was stopped as it
contained source code. It was followed by Maurice J. Bach's book
on System V, which used pseudo-code to explain the system's internals.
Many other books followed, including those by McKusick et al,
Goodheart & Cox, and Vahalia. All of these outline the methods and
concepts in UNIX in exquisite detail.
All of this begs the question, was there ever anything in UNIX worth
protecting, and how should it have been protected? UNIX, of course,
is one of the most influential and useful operating systems in
computing history. But, was it the source code that was critical,
or the algorithms used in the system, or its methods and concepts,
or something else?
As AT&T began to productize UNIX in the late 1970s, it became
critical to protect the source code. However, AT&T dithered on how
best to do this. At this time, the ability to copyright software
was still uncertain, and the company intially chose a license plus
trade secrets approach, and did not revisit the copyright approach
until the 1980s. The result of this was the lack of copyright notices
in 32V.
But was the actual source code really important? Certainly, it gave
the users the ability to tailor their systems, to fix bugs, and to
extend UNIX in directions that the original designers had not chosen
to go. But the early UNIX source code didn't contain any significantly
important algorithms. The preface to the Lions' commentary indicates
that the early systems used simple algorithms (linear search etc).
What about the essential "methods and concepts" in UNIX: a hierachical
filesystem, i-nodes, multitasking, protected process address spaces,
a command-line shell etc.? None of these were new in the realm of
operating systems.
In fact, the useful methods and concepts in UNIX were at a much
higher level, that of the UNIX toolbox mindset: lots of well-designed
tools which perform individual actions, combined with a framework
which allows them to be connected together. And the toolbox notions
were there (according to McIlroy, Thompson and Kernighan) by 1972.
But even at this level, AT&T not only failed to protect this, but
encouraged the adoption of this mindset, e.g. with the Software
Tools book by Kernighan and Plauger (1976) and the first UNIX issue
of the Bell Systems Technical Journal in 1978.
In 1983, we had Bourne's book "The UNIX System" (with the copyright
held by "Bell Laboratories"!) -- not a good way to protect things.
Even after the advent of System V, neither AT&T nor USL attempted
to veil methods and concepts. Goodheart and Cox in The Magic Garden
Explained (1994) give full details where SVR4 is concerned, calling
it "an open systems design."
Finally, in 1995, Mike Gancarz of DEC, gave the world "The UNIX
Philosophy", showing us how "the UNIX philosophy is an approach to
developing operating systems and software that constantly looks to
the future." There is very little there that isn't in the first
three articles in the BSTJ in 1978.
In summary, what made UNIX so good, and was it protectable? The
jewel in the UNIX crown is not the source code, not the algorithms,
not the low-level methods and concepts. It is the basic design of
UNIX, its inherent philosophy and mindset, and the ability for users
to modify the system and swap changes with other users. While the
latter could be limited to some extent via copyrights and licenses,
the overall design and the inherent mindset was public from the
very beginning, and could never be protected.
To end, an addendum on the ELF magic number issue. There is an
amazingly large number of executable formats that use the magic
numbers from PDP-11 a.out files: 0407, 0410, 0413. This goes to
show that a) a magic number that has no inherent meaning is
unprotectable and b) how well the PDP-11 a.out magic numbers infected
the binaries of other platforms. Remember, they are all PDP-11
branch instructions. The concept has been with us for over 30 years.
|
|
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
Make 'em clickable if you got 'em.
---
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FindLaw: ACLU vs NSA and Judge Anna Diggs Taylor - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 06:45 PM EDT
- Question for Peter - Authored by: Ed L. on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 06:52 PM EDT
- NewsPick eBay defense - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 07:49 PM EDT
- "Cray Lands $200 Million Linux-Opteron Super Deal with DOE" - Authored by: Brian S. on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 08:50 PM EDT
- FORTRAN IV - Snoopy? - Authored by: CypherOz on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 01:06 AM EDT
- BBC Newsnight programme features M$ vs Linux - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 05:02 AM EDT
- So why do we need the RIAA anymore? - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 02:33 PM EDT
- SCO lose another $4.5 million. - Authored by: Chris Lingard on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 03:37 PM EDT
- This must be a joke? - Authored by: DebianUser on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 05:37 PM EDT
- SCO to release 'new' OpenLinux - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 06:51 PM EDT
|
Authored by: feldegast on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT |
So they can be found easily
---
IANAL
The above post is (C)Copyright 2006 and released under the Creative Commons
License Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 06:18 PM EDT |
About halfway through, the statement is made that " AT&T's attitude
forced the users to exchange knowledge with one another."
There's not really any explanation there of what attitude of AT&T's forced
this, nor of what form the forcing took, and so I'm kind of lost as to what this
is referring to. Was this just the reluctance to release bug-fixes that's
mentioned some paragraphs later (with respect to the 50-bugs tape) in a
different context, or were there other things going on?
- Brooks[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 07:00 PM EDT |
Are you sure that The SCO Group has recently asserted that IBM negligently
leaked the methods and concepts in UNIX?
Anyway, thanks for this introduction.
I'm looking forward to read all your adventures in the mid nineties. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 07:21 PM EDT |
Does anybody have archives of the net.v6bugs and net.v7bugs newsgroup? Google
Groups only goes back to 1982 or so.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: devnull13 on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 08:39 PM EDT |
What is SOSP?
And does BSTJ expand to "Bell Systems Technical Journal"? Thanks.
JR[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 08:53 PM EDT |
>All the bits, not what we'd call a binary version,
>but the source.
Which was helpful when the Morris worm crippled many UNIX
servers in 1988. Most the backbone connections were down,
because too many servers were down, but phones were used to
spread some quick & dirty fixes. It is not that hard to
coordinate some changes in C code over the phone, but
don't try to do it to binaries, especualy if they run on
different CPUs...
(Now that so much phone communication is carried over IP
I wonder sometimes what will happen if a worm will put
down UNIX/Linux servers *and* the IP phones.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 10:29 PM EDT |
Of it's a scam, we've know that for years.
Scox is just saying anything to keep the case on life support.
Scox would claim they own the state of California, if it would delay the case.
It doesn't matter if nobody believes scox, that's not the point.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: arch_dude on Friday, June 16 2006 @ 11:07 PM EDT |
During the 1970s, computers were large and expensive. You could buy mainframes
from IBM or from the BUNCH ( Burroughs, UNIVAC, NCR, CDC, Honeywell). Or you
could buy a "minicomputer" from that weird upstart DEC. In any case,
if you purchased a computer, you got the source code to the OS as a matter of
course. In 1970, this was in assembler language (except for Burroughs.) each
manufacturer sponsered a user group which had (at least) an annual meeting.
There was no internet. Most sites had at least one systems programmer and these
programmers found and fixed bugs and made local enhancements. There was no
concept that the code was proprietary. Patches were sent back to the
manufacturer and freely communicated among users. The business model was: sell
hardware, software is free. The cost of a computer was approxmately $1,000,000
USD in 1970 dollars.
This is fundamentally different in many ways from the current environment, but
it is the environment in which UNIX was spawned. The systems programmers at
manufacturers and at the customer sites did not even think about the
"intellectual property" associated with the OS software. This was a
non-issue. The manufacturers had ZERO interest in the value of the software,
since the revenue came from hardware sales. the uesr's system programmers cared
about fixing bugs, not about the valuee of the software.
UNIX was developed at the end of this era, but within this zeitgeist. Burroughs
and (reluctantly) Honeywell had built OSes using higher-level languages, but
this was strange and exotic. UNIX was the first OS in a higher-level language
that most programmers were exposed to.
I was a systems programmer during this era: 1970-1972-- IBM customer.
1970-1974--UNIVAC employee. 1974-1976--CDC customer. 1976-1979 Burroughs
customer.
About tapes: a "tape" was a reel of 0.5 inch magnetic tape of length
2400 feet. The physical reel was 12" in diamter and weighed about two
pounds. A blank tape cost about $20 (1970 usd.) or more than half the cost of
the hotel room at the conference. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 01:01 AM EDT |
One of the issues we have all confronted from the beginning of this case is that
SCOG has not openly presented their case.
This seems to be based on the relatively thin pretense that there are somehow
secrets in Unix.
The genius of Unix is that is spawned the idea of collaborative development, at
first unconsciously by borrowing from the best practices of the existing
operating systems.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 01:10 AM EDT |
PJ,
This is the part where it really shows you know nothing about IP law.
And I mean nothing ... period.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 01:19 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 02:35 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: old joe on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 04:00 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 04:31 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 05:09 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 05:10 AM EDT
- UNIX Methods and Concepts: Putting the Genie Back in the Bottle, by Salus & Toomey - Authored by: LaurenceTux on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 10:43 AM EDT
- Of course IP Law exists! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 03:50 PM EDT
|
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 03:06 AM EDT |
What The SCO Group fails to realize is that, from day one, the methods and
concepts in UNIX were out in the open.
My interpreation of what SCO is
claiming is that any methods and/or conecepts IBM created and added to UNIX had
to be treated the same as any UNIX methods or concepts they got from
AT&T/USL/Novell/oldSCO/newSCO. In otherwords, that their contaigon theory
of the contract doesn't just apply to code, but to methods and concepts as well.
Of course this theory has no merit, but if it is their theory then
you're spending time disproving the wrong boneheaded theory. --- Give a
man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be
warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 03:13 AM EDT |
Thanks, that was an interesting read!
A question, where are the sources? There were many little details, like
"tapes found in the street". Are these personal, original
observations? Or did the authors know this first hand?
---
--------------------------
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: N. on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 09:52 AM EDT |
Should we be condoning the unauthorised leaking of a company's source code by an
employee?
OK, so UNIX code, methods and concepts also escaped by other routes, but no one
should be proud of saying it's OK to use the benefits of that knowledge because
someone else stole that information before them.
---
N.
(Now almost completely Windows-free)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 09:58 AM EDT |
This dissolves SCO's latest mud pellet quite nicely, thank you. And pulls in
some trollfire, so touched the right nerve.
Good work.
---
Shampoo for my real friends, real poo for my sham friends - not Francis Bacon
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, June 17 2006 @ 01:17 PM EDT |
I'm confused. At what point did UNIX become public domain? Thanks for clearing
this up for me.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: darkonc on Sunday, June 18 2006 @ 12:49 AM EDT |
What actually made UNIX™ so powerful was precisely what made Linux so
powerful -- All of it's users had access to the Source Code.
<P>
Although it was, technically, a proprietary OS, just about Every major
University had a site license for the source code, and the few companies that
also had Unix installations had a license as well. Many of the companies that
had Unix also had access to the flegling Usenet or ARPAnet by the very early
80s, so they were able to share patches, and even full source code chunks (if
you mailed the source a copy of the first page of your license).
<P>
In other words, early UNIX had most of the advantages of Open Source -- other
than the license. In fact, by the late '80s the "community" code"
in Unix, (much of that BSD) was such a large proportion if the code, that the
BSD-lite project was able to get off the ground and rewrite (most of) the
remaining bits of UNIX and release an (almost) unencumbered version of UNIX.
<P>((
My thought is that the biggest problem that BSD-inc ran-into is that the guys
that tried to commercialize the "free" Unix openly infringed on the
UNIX Trademark -- which AT&T zealously guarded -- I mean, Come on!
1-800-ITS-UNIX --- That's like burning a US flag in Iraq ... on top of a damaged
Humvee, at the gates to the green zone. The question of the first legal salvo
wasn't if, but <i>when</i>, and the window for the lottery pool was
really really small. )) If they'd used 1-800-real-bsd, instead, they probably
would have been fine. Unfortunately, once AT&T filed suit, they were
pretty much required to also sue them for copyright violation too, and that's
why BSD got frozen in a legal limbo for some years... -- This helped Linux in
two ways:
<br>
1)The legal cloud scared people off of BSD for a while... This gave Linux a
chance to get it's sea legs.<br>
2) It ultimately cleared the IP rights to the BSD code base. This is turning out
to be very useful for SCOvsIBM et al.
<P>
What really killed UNIX in the 80s and early 90s wasn't the fragmentation -- It
was the fact that UNIX was effectively closed-sourced by the attempts of
AT&T to commercialize it. By the late 80's, about the only people who
had source licenses to UNIX were the few universities that insisted on still
running BSD (and, that, mostly on VAXes), and the commercial UNIX providers.
The result was that UNIX was starting to (relatively speaking) stagnate.
<P>
The fragmentation that is cited as the big problem for UNIX was also a result of
the closing of The Source.
Although the UNIX base remained stable, most of the improvements that
were occuring "Out in the wild" were in isolated proprietary islands.
The only real pooled work was in things like Motif, which was (no surprise)
based on the Open-Sourced X-Windows. Other than that, the standards-based UNIX
seems to have consisted primarily of documenting what already existed.
<P>
AT&T didn't realize that by allowing the UNIX source pool to be closed
off, they were killing the golden goose -- Perhaps it was because through the
grab-and-hoard eyes of the standard commercial view of the worls, the goose
looked more like a Penguin.
<P>
In the meantime, Linux was able to go from 0 to 60 in the space of about 8
years, and is still accelerating.
---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|