IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

IWETHEY Home / IWETHEY Board / News Picks Forum / Hmmm - I wonder 'which' code they refer to ... IBM
Post #100,006
by dmarker
Picture of dmarker
5/2/03 6:27:19 PM
Reply
New Hmmm - I wonder 'which' code they refer to ... IBM

Worked with Bell Labs in the 1970s to implement UNIX ver6/ver7 on IBM System/360 mainframes & IBM contributed substantial portions of kernel code to the product. It was argued at the time that Unix raw had very little by way of robust memory management and locking etc: mechanisms.

The IBM 360 Unix was the first major usage outside Bell (Ken, Dennis & others had been mostly developing and using Unix on Digital PDP computers). Bell was the company that did most of the work on Unix ver6 / ver7 later DEC computers as Ken Olsen (then DEC CEO) always thought of Unix as 'snake oil'.

So am wondering just where these portions of Unix code really came from :-)

Cheers

Doug Marker


Spectres from our past: Beware the future when your children & theirs come after you for what you may have been willing to condone today - dsm 2003


Motivational: When performing activities, ask yourself if the person you most want to be would do, or say, it - dsm 2003
Post #100,080
by tablizer
5/3/03 1:41:35 AM
Reply
New Reminds me of Ashton Tate vs. Fox
Ashton Tate sued Fox Software for "stealing" their language (not source code in this case, but the XBase language).

It turned out that the language was originally developed in NASA's JPL lab by a guy fiddling with better ways to track football stats. It was done on gov time so no private firm could claim ownership. The case was dropped.

In the SCO case, all they seem to know is that some of the code is the same or similar, but have no evidence of who put it there, when, or who had it first so far.

What needs to be done is an investigation rather than lawsuits. It is sue first and ask questions later.
________________
oop.ismad.com
     SCO's other shoe drops: SCO source code found in Linux - (admin) - (16) - May 2, 2003, 10:43:18 AM EDT
         Simple solution - (drewk) - (3) - May 2, 2003, 10:50:44 AM EDT
             Wouldn't it be funny... - (folkert) - May 2, 2003, 11:28:42 AM EDT
             Linux revision control - (kmself) - (1) - May 2, 2003, 11:40:24 AM EDT
                 Wouldn't that *have* to be the case? - (drewk) - May 2, 2003, 11:57:09 AM EDT
         SCO stabs their own lawyers in the back - (drewk) - (4) - May 2, 2003, 12:56:15 PM EDT
             ROFL - (admin) - (3) - May 2, 2003, 03:14:07 PM EDT
                 Hey! You're maligning snakes everywhere with that one -NT - (jake123) - (2) - May 2, 2003, 03:15:06 PM EDT
                     Sorry. -NT - (admin) - (1) - May 2, 2003, 03:15:38 PM EDT
                         :) -NT - (jake123) - May 2, 2003, 03:18:02 PM EDT
         So 10 lines of code == 20 years of [...] IP? - (jb4) - (3) - May 2, 2003, 01:25:40 PM EDT
             Hmmm - I wonder 'which' code they refer to ... IBM - (dmarker) - (1) - May 2, 2003, 06:27:19 PM EDT
                 Reminds me of Ashton Tate vs. Fox - (tablizer) - May 3, 2003, 01:41:35 AM EDT
             Depends on level of difference - (tuberculosis) - Aug. 21, 2007, 06:35:33 AM EDT
         Eric Raymond deconstructs SCO's argument. - (Another Scott) - (2) - May 5, 2003, 02:09:59 PM EDT
             Excellent resource. Thanks Scott -NT - (screamer) - May 6, 2003, 02:04:21 PM EDT
             The GPL argument is particularly compelling IMO - (kmself) - May 7, 2003, 01:54:17 AM EDT

I'll be back on you like dumb on Dan Quayle.
42 ms