[Info-vax] VMS survivability

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 2/19/2023 4:35 PM, Dan Cross wrote:
> In article <tsu14t$g5l7$1 at dont-email.me>,
> Arne Vajhøj  <arne at vajhoej.dk> wrote:
>> But there was also hardware cost. Solaris, AIX, HP-UX and
>> Tru64 was running on expensive hardware while Linux ran
>> on cheaper x84-64 hardware (Solaris did also support x86-64
>> besides the primary platform SPARC).
> 
> x86_64 didn't exist when this was happening.  It came in
> 2000 or so.

Linux started on x86.

But it did not kill the commercial Unixes until x86-64 had
arrived.

In 2000 commercial Unix on RISC CPU's was still the thing
that companies ported to.

>> But there were also free Unixes running on x86-64 available
>> back then. Why Linux and not them? My best guess is that
>> Linux had better "marketing" - not traditional marketing
>> aka slick sales people selling to big companies, but the
>> internet developer to developer talk type of marketing -
>> Linux was cool while *BSD was old.
> 
> Nope.  It had more to do with the USL/UCB lawsuit and the
> presumed effect that that would have on the freely-available
> BSD code.  Since Linux was a clean-room reimplementation, it
> wasn't encumbered by AT&T copyright, and would thus be "safe"
> should AT&T win in court.

Nope.

That case was settled in February 1994. Plenty of time for
any BSD to have competed with the very new Linux and the
commercial Unixes for the following 15 years.

> What's ironic is that the people making these decisions didn't
> quite understand the AT&T lawsuit, which was about _trade secret
> status_ of Unix, not copyright.  AT&T was trying to say that it
> was the system interface that was the real intellectual property
> that was being violated, not the specific expression of that
> interface.  This would have affected Linux, too, despite being
> an independent reimplementation.

Do you use CharGPT to create this type of fiction?

It was both copyright and trade secrets. Plus breach of contract
and trademark.

 From the judges ruling:

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/832/790/1428569/

<quote>
Count 1: Breach of Contract. The University knowingly breached its 
licensing agreements to use 32V by distributing, disclosing, and using 
proprietary software in violation of the terms of the agreements. The 
University acted under the authority of the Regents, who had cause to 
know of the breach.

Count 3: Copyright Infringement. The University and BSDI violated 
Plaintiff's copyright in its Unix source code by reproducing, 
distributing, and preparing derivative works of Plaintiff's source code. 
The University acted under the authority of the Regents, who had cause 
to know of the violations.

Count 4: Misappropriation of Trade Secrets. The University and BSDI 
misappropriated Plaintiff's trade secrets in violation of state law. The 
University acted under the authority of the Regents, who had cause to 
know of the misappropriation. *797 Count 6: Trademark. The University's 
June 28, 1991 announcement, that its Net2 software is "available to 
anyone and requires no previous license, either from AT & T or The 
Regents of the University of California," was materially false and 
misleading in violation of the Lanham Act. The University acted under 
the authority of the Regents, who had cause to know of the violation.

Count 8: Trademark. The University, in promotional materials and its 
notice of copyright, misrepresented that the source code in Net2 
originated within the University, rather than with AT & T or Plaintiff. 
The University acted under the authority of the Regents, who had cause 
to know of the misrepresentation.
</quote>

Arne