Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- From: Alan Baker <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:02:00 GMT
In article <-oydnQZwOujZPiLbnZ2dnUVZ_tmhnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Alan Baker" <alangbaker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:alangbaker-1AA738.17163802082007@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <1186097562.708022.22460@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Edwin <thorne25@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Jul 30, 3:11 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <F9idnZ2bN9M3ozDbnZ2dnUVZ_gGdn...@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Edwin" <thorn...@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
Show me where you got the idea Sun bought their OS, or where
you
got
the idea the Mayor said Apple is going out of business.
Done and done already.
You're a liar.
Now...
... finally answer what you were asked above, instead of
continuing
the evasion you've practiced for years.
I answered it:
The University of California charged license fees for BSD.
No they didn't. They never charged anybody any fees for licensing
BSD.
All that was required was to maintain the copyrights in the files.
Yes, they did.
That those fees didn't do more than cover the costs of distributing the
media doesn't make them any less license fees.
"The licensing terms were liberal. A licensee could release the code
modified or unmodified in source or binary form with no accounting or
royalties to Berkeley. The only requirements were that the copyright
notices in the source file be left intact and that products that
incorporated the code indicate in their documentation that the product
contained code from the University of California and its contributors.
Although Berkeley charged a $1,000 fee to get a tape, anyone was free
to get a copy from anyone who already had received it. Indeed, several
large sites put it up for anonymous ftp shortly after it was released.
Given that it was so easily available, the CSRG was pleased that
several hundred organizations purchased copies, since their fees
helped fund further development."
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
"The Berkeley copyright poses no restrictions on private or commercial
use of the software and imposes only simple and uniform requirements
for maintaining copyright notices in redistributed versions and
crediting the originator of the material only in advertising."
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
Oh, look everybody....
... Alan Baker is wrong...
...AGAIN! <G>
Bill Joy
administered the collection of those fees.
No he didn't. He collected fees for the cost of copying the files
on to
tapes, and for shipping, not for licensing.
Sorry, but you're wrong.
"The licensing terms were liberal. A licensee could release the code
modified or unmodified in source or binary form with no accounting or
royalties to Berkeley. The only requirements were that the copyright
notices in the source file be left intact and that products that
incorporated the code indicate in their documentation that the product
contained code from the University of California and its contributors.
Although Berkeley charged a $1,000 fee to get a tape, anyone was free
to get a copy from anyone who already had received it. Indeed, several
large sites put it up for anonymous ftp shortly after it was released.
Given that it was so easily available, the CSRG was pleased that
several hundred organizations purchased copies, since their fees
helped fund further development."
http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/opensources/book/kirkmck.html
It acknowledges what I've already shown: that UC charged for licenses,
but didn't make a profit from doing so.
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
You haven't shown that you're correct in what you claimed. All that you've
shown is that you refuse to admit you are wrong even after years of being
shown you are wrong.
I've now shown that AT&T charged hefty license fees to use the AT&T code
that made up the majority of the BSD in 1982.
And Bill Joy never charge himself a licensing fee, as you claim he did.
BSD didn't belong to Bill Joy.
"The Berkeley copyright poses no restrictions on private or commercial
use of the software and imposes only simple and uniform requirements
for maintaining copyright notices in redistributed versions and
crediting the originator of the material only in advertising."
http://www.openbsd.org/policy.html
Which doesn't disprove that UC charged for BSD licenses.
Yes is does. A license fee is a restriction, and Berkeley says there are
no restrictions besides maintaining the copyrights.
No. Your English is atrocious.
A licensee fee is not a restriction. A license fee is a fee to obtain a
license. The University of California charged such fees. They may have
been nominal, but they were there.
A license *contains* restrictions on how the licensee may use the
licensed product.
You keep focussing on the minutiae and ignoring the big picture.
The "big picture" is you falsely claimed that Sun bought their OS
when in
reality you knew nothing about the origin of BSD, SunOS, Solaris, or
virtually anything else to do with Unix history.
Nope. The big picture is that Sun's model with their OS is precisely
the
same as Apple's model was (acquire an OS from elsewhere and then
develop
it), yet you call that a shortcoming for Apple and not for Sun.
Sun's founder wrote BSD, did not "acquire and OS from elsewhere and
then develop it."
Nope. Bill Joy wrote *much* of BSD.
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
Your claim was he acquired it, not that he wrote any of it.
Nope. My claim was that *Sun* acquired it. They also acquired *one* of
its developers.
But then, so did Keith Bostic:
"Bostic was a member of the Computer Systems Research Group (CSRG) at
the University of California, Berkeley, who created BSD. Among many
other tasks, he led the effort at CSRG to create a free software version
of BSD, ..."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Bostic>
And Marshall Kirk McKusick:
"Kirk started with BSD by virtue of the fact that he shared an office at
Berkeley with Bill Joy, who in essence spearheaded the beginnings of the
BSD system.[2]
Some of McKusick's largest contributions to BSD have been to the file
system. He helped design the original Berkeley Fast File System (FFS).
More recently, he implemented soft updates, an alternative approach to
maintaining disk integrity after a crash or power outage, in FFS, and a
revised version of UFS known as "UFS2". The magic number used in the
UFS2 super block structure reflects McKusick's birth date: "#define
FS_UFS2_MAGIC 0x19540119" (as found in /usr/include/ufs/ffs/fs.h on
FreeBSD systems).
He was also primarily responsible for creating the complementary
features of filesystem snapshots and background fsck (file system check
and repair), which both integrate closely with soft updates. After the
filesystem snapshot, the filesystem can be brought up immediately after
a power outage, and fsck can run as a background process."
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Kirk_McKusick>
And Michael Karels:
Then there's the fact that Bill Joy wasn't always working on BSD while
he was at Berkeley:
That "fact" doesn't justify your claim:
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
My facts (plural) utterly refute your claim that Sun didn't need to pay
a license fee for BSD because Bill Joy was the owner of BSD because he
wrote it. Showing that other people wrote it as well completely
disproves that line of reasoning.
"he Second Berkeley Software Distribution (2BSD), released in 1978,
included updated versions of the 1BSD software as well as two new
programs by Joy that persist on Unix systems to this day: the vi text
editor (a visual version of ex) and the C shell.
Though Joy moved on to other projects the following year , the 2BSD
distribution continued to expand. The final version of this
distribution, 2.11BSD, is a complete system used on hundreds of PDP-11's
still running in various corners of the world."
<http://ewh.ieee.org/sb/karachi/pnec/osh/bsd.html>
No response?
"Before co-founding Sun in 1983, Joy designed and wrote the Berkeley
version of the Unix (BSD) operating system, which became the backbone
of the Internet and led to other open source operating systems."
http://www.internetnews.com/dev-news/article.php/3460961
Funny you don't quote the very first phrase of the very first paragraph
of that article:
Funny how you can't read the words above your sentence.
"The Sun executive who helped create BSD"
"helped create", Edwin.
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
That's not you saying anybody at Sun "helped create" BSD.
When he was helping to create it, he wasn't at Sun, was he?
"Bill Joy was the person largely responsible for the authorship of
Berkeley UNIX, also known as BSD, from which spring many modern forms
of UNIX, including FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD. Some of his most
notable contributions were TCP/IP, the vi editor, NFS, and the csh
shell. "
http://www.computerhistory.org/events/index.php?spkid=1&ssid=1120598654
And largely responsible isn't entirely responsible.
Acquiring their OS from somebody else would make them not responsible at
all. So the claim you made:
Nonsense. Bill Joy was doing work for the University of California at
Berkeley and hence they ended up with the rights to BSD (which is why
the copyrights on it are UoC's and not Bill Joy's). That doesn't change
whether or not he was responsible.
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
Is completely bogus, but you still refuse to admit you're wrong, after years
of being shown you're wrong.
I've given you the direct quotes of an insider (who was also using BSD
as the basis for a Unix workstation at the same time as Sun) that AT&T
charged for the license to use their code that was still what comprised
most of BSD at that time.
You shot from the hip about how it was just some teenage girl...
"Joy may be overreacting against the new generation of open-source
hackers, many of whom frequently fail to acknowledge (or even be aware
of) Joy's contributions to the software ecology that underlies the
entire free-software movement. Joy says that when he boots* Red Hat
Linux, he sees boot-up messages scroll by that he personally wrote 20
years earlier. Joy would much rather talk about his current passions,
Sun's Java and Jini, and when he's asked about Linux, he sometimes
lets traces of annoyance slip through. Who are these punk hackers,
some of whom weren't even alive the first time Joy rewrote the Unix
kernel?"
http://archive.salon.com/tech/fsp/2000/05/16/chapter_2_part_one/index...
Which doesn't prove that other people weren't involved.
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
You claimed Bill Joy wasn't involved at all.
No, I didn't.
Why?
As in "why does Alan Baker talk out of his ass?"
LOL
Now tell what motivated you to claim Sun paid to buy their OS, and
why it
took you so many months (years?) to come up with your U of C dodge.
It didn't take me months. I knew from whom Sun bought their OS because
I
knew who owned it.
You're lying again.
Nope. It was owned by the University of California as attested to by the
copyright notices.
All you had was your misconceptions based on your quick glance at the
copyrights.
LOL
Where's your evidence that it belonged to Bill Joy?
Is Solaris just "BSD with a new GUI and new APIs", as you claim Mac
OS
X
is?
I've given you the history of Solaris enough times. Go back and
read
the
information I already gave you.
And you got it wrong.
Oh look, everybody...
... Alan Baker is wrong...
... AGAIN! <G>
LOL
"But SunOS was just a purchased OS. Like Apple,
Sun purchased and [sic] OS and then developed it. No more."
Laugh that away.
Sun didn't just "purchase" or even just "acquire" their OS, "like Apple."
Unlike Apple, Sun and its co-founder were there contributing to the creation
of BSD, and then to SunOS, Solaris, and then Unix SRV4.
AT&T UNIX -> UC Berkeley BSD -> Sun SunOS
UC Berkeley BSD -> NeXT NextSTEP -> Apple Mac OS X.
Utterly analogous.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."
.
- References:
- Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- From: Edwin
- Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- From: Alan Baker
- Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- From: Edwin
- Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- Prev by Date: Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- Next by Date: Re: For the FireWire naysayers.
- Previous by thread: Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- Next by thread: Re: Edwin's prediction from one year ago.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
