Subject: Re: 10e `distribution'

From: [email-masked]
Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2000 22:11:33 -0400

As I've probably told both Norman and Warren on various
occasions though likely in pieces, the problems with a 10e
'distribution' are basically two:

First is just the mechanics of getting something barely
coherent, meaning getting rid of stuff that might
have been fiddled for 10e but isn't interesting.
We do have a snapshot called bowell.src.fs, but
it's 360 megabytes. If norman has something along these
lines (but much smaller) that might be interesting.

Second is the legalities.  A lot of the messiness in arranging
both Plan 9 distributions (including the latest) was in dealing
with third-party rights--things we got from somewhere.
Various bits that were in the second Plan 9 aren't in the
recent one just because of the work involved in correspondence
with people who might well be amenable, but finding the
right person and dickering over details became cumbersome.
(This gets into the first point; just identifying what not to
include involves some work).

The kernel is an interesting question--who claims it?
It is a well-delimited area and the third-party aspect
is limited too.  It derives from an early BSD (pre-"liberated" BSD)
together with our work (including Norman's)
and thus is arguably SCO's, especially given that the
most important 10e (from 8e) changes are the streams
ideas.  So I suspect that what is needed is the inclusion
of it into the SCO ancient unix mechanism.   I'm sure
that if SCO accepted that, there would be no local problem.

Specifically, there won't be anyone here willing to assert
that 10e or 8e is ours to do with as we please, though
if it were, a license along the lines of the current Plan 9
one would be trivial; the sticking point is that there
is no interest in asserting the ownership.

	Dennis

---

From: Warren Toomey <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 16 Jun 2000 12:30:25 +1000 (EST)

In article by [email-masked]:
> So I suspect that what is needed is the inclusion

What platform or platforms does 10th Edition run on? I ask because the
SCO Ancient UNIX source license says:

	The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which SCO grants rights under this
	AGREEMENT are restricted to the following UNIX Operating Systems,
	including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate on the 16-Bit
	PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System
	with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor operating
	systems:

        	16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 32-bit 32V

If 10th Edition runs on the PDP-11 platform, then I believe that Lucent
could distribute the source code, as it is a successor system. We already
have a similar agreement from DEC/Compaq to allow Ultrix-11 to be
distributed to holders of the SCO Ancient UNIX license.

> is no interest in asserting the ownership.

Would Lucent be prepared to claim that they own those parts of 10e that
are not specifically part of 7e? If so, and if 10e runs on the PDP-11,
we can proceed as we did with Ultrix-11.

Thanks again,
	Warren