Slashdot Mirror

BSD Family Tree

Of course, that might just cause more confusion.

ND

OS X, back when it was called NEXTSTEP, forked off of BSD 8 years before FreeBSD did, even before 4.4lite came on the scene. You can trace its lineage yourself, if you'd like. Since then, there's been a lot of code borrowing but everyone borrows from FreeBSD and FreeBSD is far from the only OS whose code Darwin has borrowed. Using just that to say that Darwin is based on FreeBSD would make little more sense than using the same fact to claim that GNU/Linux and Windows XP are based on FreeBSD.

Referenced from the site you mention yourself is the BSD family tree.

If you had bothered to look at it, you'd have noticed that:

Darwin is based on Rhapsody, NetBSD 1.4 and FreeBSD 3.2
OS X 10.2 imported code from FreeBSD 4.4
OS X 10.3 imported code from FreeBSD 5.1

If you had ever bothered to use a FreeBSD 5.x machine for a while, and used a machine with OS X for a while from the shell, you'd have noticed how the userland is virtually identical, to a level way beyond how some linux distributions are similar..

Where OS X really did not derive from FreeBSD at all is at the kernel level and of course the gui.

And i have to stick to 2.11 BSD for my pdp-11...

If you look at the BSD family tree here, you'd see that at one point in time, all Free/Net/Open BSD changed to use the codebase from 4.4BSD Lite, the unencumbered version.

How Did It All Start?
By Snuffub
everyone knows that youre a leading figure in the BSD community so it's no wonder that apple hired you to head up the darwin project, but how did the relationship start off? Did they contact you early on when they first decided to use BSD? or was it an out of the blue phone call? Either way what were your major reservations when you were first offered the job, given that at the time apple had no track record in terms of their comitment to the open source community?

JH: I was actually the first to contact Apple, though I found them very receptive to the idea of my working there when I did. I'd been frustrated by Unix's historical lack of success on the desktop for a long time, and took it rather personally since I used desktop machines a lot in my daily life and Windows was not my idea of an ideal desktop OS. After seeing FreeBSD grow and prosper for almost 10 years, I also felt that BSD had done an amazingly good job of breaking into the server market and I was very ready to see it take on some new challenges. When I saw the first developer preview of Mac OS X, I knew Apple had something special on its hands and I started itching to get more involved. When 10.1 came out, I called and asked for an interview. :-)

"It's "BSD-based" in the sense that its long-ago ancestor was the original BSD, not, as a lot of people seem to think, that it's somehow FreeBSD or something like that."

Checkout Rhapsody's and Darwin's locations on the BSD tree.
The last Berkley release 4.4BSD-Lite2 (1995) to Rphapsody (1997).
Then NetBSD (12 May 1999) and FreeBSD 3.2 (17 May 1999) into Darwin.
Then Darwin to MacOSX 10.0, to MacOSX 10.1.
Then, FreeBSD 4.4 (20Sep01) into MacOSX 10.2 (23Aug02).
FreeBSD 5.1 (9 Jun03) into MacOSX 10.3 (24Oct03).

How Did It All Start?
By Snuffub
everyone knows that youre a leading figure in the BSD community so it's no wonder that apple hired you to head up the darwin project, but how did the relationship start off? Did they contact you early on when they first decided to use BSD? or was it an out of the blue phone call? Either way what were your major reservations when you were first offered the job, given that at the time apple had no track record in terms of their comitment to the open source community?

JH: I was actually the first to contact Apple, though I found them very receptive to the idea of my working there when I did. I'd been frustrated by Unix's historical lack of success on the desktop for a long time, and took it rather personally since I used desktop machines a lot in my daily life and Windows was not my idea of an ideal desktop OS. After seeing FreeBSD grow and prosper for almost 10 years, I also felt that BSD had done an amazingly good job of breaking into the server market and I was very ready to see it take on some new challenges. When I saw the first developer preview of Mac OS X, I knew Apple had something special on its hands and I started itching to get more involved. When 10.1 came out, I called and asked for an interview. :-)

"It's "BSD-based" in the sense that its long-ago ancestor was the original BSD, not, as a lot of people seem to think, that it's somehow FreeBSD or something like that."

Checkout Rhapsody's and Darwin's locations on the BSD tree.
The last Berkley release 4.4BSD-Lite2 (1995) to Rphapsody (1997).
Then NetBSD (12 May 1999) and FreeBSD 3.2 (17 May 1999) into Darwin.
Then Darwin to MacOSX 10.0, to MacOSX 10.1.
Then, FreeBSD 4.4 (20Sep01) into MacOSX 10.2 (23Aug02).
FreeBSD 5.1 (9 Jun03) into MacOSX 10.3 (24Oct03).

How Did It All Start?
By Snuffub
everyone knows that youre a leading figure in the BSD community so it's no wonder that apple hired you to head up the darwin project, but how did the relationship start off? Did they contact you early on when they first decided to use BSD? or was it an out of the blue phone call? Either way what were your major reservations when you were first offered the job, given that at the time apple had no track record in terms of their comitment to the open source community?

JH: I was actually the first to contact Apple, though I found them very receptive to the idea of my working there when I did. I'd been frustrated by Unix's historical lack of success on the desktop for a long time, and took it rather personally since I used desktop machines a lot in my daily life and Windows was not my idea of an ideal desktop OS. After seeing FreeBSD grow and prosper for almost 10 years, I also felt that BSD had done an amazingly good job of breaking into the server market and I was very ready to see it take on some new challenges. When I saw the first developer preview of Mac OS X, I knew Apple had something special on its hands and I started itching to get more involved. When 10.1 came out, I called and asked for an interview. :-)

"It's "BSD-based" in the sense that its long-ago ancestor was the original BSD, not, as a lot of people seem to think, that it's somehow FreeBSD or something like that."

Checkout Rhapsody's and Darwin's locations on the BSD tree.
The last Berkley release 4.4BSD-Lite2 (1995) to Rphapsody (1997).
Then NetBSD (12 May 1999) and FreeBSD 3.2 (17 May 1999) into Darwin.
Then Darwin to MacOSX 10.0, to MacOSX 10.1.
Then, FreeBSD 4.4 (20Sep01) into MacOSX 10.2 (23Aug02).
FreeBSD 5.1 (9 Jun03) into MacOSX 10.3 (24Oct03).

The Darwin team is indebted to a diverse collection of open source projects, including the following:

- Mach, which was originally developed by Project Mach at Carnegie-Mellon University, and later enhanced by the Open Software Foundation (now The Open Group).:

- 4.4BSD-Lite2, originated in UC Berkeley's Computer Systems Research Group and developed by a large number of contributors::

* FreeBSD, the primary reference platform for Darwin's BSD kernel development.:
* NetBSD, the upstream source for a significant portion of Darwin's user-space commands and tools.
* OpenBSD, with its focus on robustness and security and its integrated cryptography, provides OpenSSH for secure remote access.

- Apache HTTPD, the world's most popular web server, is included as part of the Darwin distribution, making Apple the largest distributor of Apache.

In 1997, Apple Computers, which had an interest in BSD and Unix after having bought NeXT in December 1996, produced a 4.4BSD-Lite2 derivation named Rhapsody in 1997. This eventually evolved, with help from the FreeBSD and NetBSD projects, into Darwin, a system with a MACH microkernel wrapped with a 4.4BSD-Lite2 kernel API. FreeBSD project cofounder and longtime core team member Jordan Hubbard headed this project. Darwin forms the heart of the Mac OS X line of operating systems.

After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available.

The point is moot anyway because Caldera, having acquired the rights to UNIX from old SCO, released Unix V32 under a BSD-Style license. This includes the ABI of course, download it yourself and see. The most SCO could require is that their copyright be recognized in the header files and that mention be made that they fall under a different license and not the GPL. Here's the signature on the email about it:

Dion L. Johnson II - dionj_at_caldera.com
Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl.

After reviewing the affidavits of Plaintiff's and Defendants, experts, a great deal of uncertainty remains as to what trade secrets Net2 might contain. One fact does seem clear: the header files, filenames, and function names used by Defendants are not trade secrets. Defendants could have printed these off of any of the thousands of unrestricted copies of Plaintiff's binary object code. (Kashtan Aff. at 9-11.) Moreover, the nonfunctional elements of the code, such as comments, cannot be trade secrets because these elements are minimal and confer no competitive advantage on Defendants. The copied elements that contain instructions, such as BREAD and CPIO, might perhaps be trade secrets, but Defendants' experts have argued persuasively that these instructions are either in the public domain or otherwise exempt. As Defendants have repeatedly emphasized, much of 32V seems to be publicly available.

The point is moot anyway because Caldera, having acquired the rights to UNIX from old SCO, released Unix V32 under a BSD-Style license. This includes the ABI of course, download it yourself and see. The most SCO could require is that their copyright be recognized in the header files and that mention be made that they fall under a different license and not the GPL. Here's the signature on the email about it:

Dion L. Johnson II - dionj_at_caldera.com
Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl.

RDU might be better than it was a year or two ago but it is still pretty bad. I had to leave Raleigh/Durham for Philadelphia because of the lousy job market. Keep in mind I'm a more senior level geek with 10 years in the market (10 years working with MS technologies, 7 years with Linux & Solaris).

I remember going to a TriBUG meeting where every single person there was laid off. These were senior level UNIX geeks, and not one of them could find work. The other UG I was involved in, TriLUG, was doing better probably because of the Linux boom combined with a larger contingent of sysadmins & programmers entrenched in academia where they were a bit safer. Still, enough members of that organization were out of work that some time was set aside at the beginning of every meeting for people to stand up and give a short pitch on who they are and what kind of work they were looking for.

Unless you were a guru sysadmin and programmer and DBA, you had almost no chance of finding work in RDU. And even then you had to be prepared to fight hard, accept entry level pay and still likely face rejection.

The older/larger cities seem to be fairing better than small specialty towns like RDU or Silicon Valley. New York City, Philadelphia, etc. are large and diversified and seem to be weathering the storm better. I'm not as plugged into RDU today as I was a year ago today, but a year ago today it was a wasteland in RDU and only a fool would relocate there without already having a job established.

In doing this we angered some in the Open Source community by pointing out obvious intellectual property problems that exist in the current Linux software development model.

It's not obvious to me that there are intellectual property problems in the current Linux software development model. In particular, there are no problems that don't exist in traditional closed source development either. If anything, Linux developers have a greater incentive not to copy code, because their work is available for public scrutiny. Had Microsoft, for example, "infringed" on your copyrights, you wouldn't even know about it!

The second development was an admission by Open Source leader Bruce Perens that UNIX System V code (owned by SCO) is, in fact, in Linux, and it shouldn't be there. Mr Perens stated that there is "an error in the Linux developer's process" which allowed Unix System V code that "didn't belong in Linux" to end up in the Linux kernel (source: ComputerWire, August 25, 2003).

You have misquoted Perens. He certainly did not claim that "Unix System V" code was in Linux. He said there was code in Linux that is "very similar" to System V, but has a traceable open-source origin:

The code is from Unix version 3, the oldest known version of Unix that still exists in machine-readable form. The complete source for that system can be found here on the net. In 2002, Caldera released this code as Open Source, under this license. Caldera is, of course, the company that now calls itself SCO. The license very clearly permits the Linux developers to use the code in question.

It is also worthy of note that this code was removed from the kernel for technical reasons before it was shown at SCOForum, and that, as part of the ia64 port, it was never even a part of any major commercial Linux distribution.

To date, we claim that more than one million lines of Unix System V protected code have been contributed to Linux

To arrive at a number remotely close to "one million lines", you must not be referring to Unix System V code itself. This is probably why you used the phrase "Unix System V protected code". You seem to think that NUMA, RCU, and JFS--technologies copyrighted and patented by IBM--somehow now belong to SCO thanks to your contract with IBM. IBM disputes this, of course.

In any event, your contract claims give you absolutely no right to collect license fees from end-users over these technologies. IBM holds the copyrights on the code; it was IBM's to give to Linux. If doing so breached IBM's contract with you, you are within your rights to seek damages from IBM. However, the contracts between SCO and IBM simply cannot apply to end-users who are not a party to the contracts.

Bruce Perens addresses this issue here, at the end of same the article from which you misquoted him earlier in your letter.

You draw some pretty serious conclusions from this one weak example of infringement: "In fact, this issue goes to the very heart of whether Open Source can be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software." Closed source software is not immune from the same kinds of problems. Take a look at the recent patent lawsuits against Microsoft. Can Closed Source be trusted as a development model for enterprise computing software?

You mentioned that the aforementioned code copying issue damaged the open source community's credibility, but I find it telling that you didn't mention the other code copying example given at SCOForum. This example intended to show that SCO owns the Berkely Packet Filter code (which is, of course, part of BSD), and that an implementation of the BP

"Nothing can change the fact that a Linux developer on the payroll of Silicon Graphics stripped copyright attributions from copyrighted System V code..."

Nothing, except, inconveniently, that it is not a fact. The fact is that SGI did extensive due diligence before contributing any code to Linux, and the code in question long precedes the development of Unix System V.

Quotes from Perens:

The oldest version of this code we've found so far is in Donald Knuth's The Art of Computer Programming, published in 1968.

The implementation shown in the slides was written by Dennis M. Ritchie or Ken Thompson at AT&T, in 1973. You can see the 1973 version of the function in this file, originally called dmr/malloc.c. The code is from Unix version 3, the oldest known version of Unix that still exists in machine-readable form. The complete source for that system can be found here on the net. In 2002, Caldera released this code as Open Source, under this license.

Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.

And finaly Perens argues:

AT&T was actually found to have lost its copyright to the code in question during the lawsuit, because the code was published without a proper copyright notice.

Consequently, I find that Plaintiff has failed to demonstrate a likelihood that it can successfully defend its copyright in [Unix version] 32V.

The result is that between the judge's finding and 1996, when there were additional changes to the Berne copyright convention that would have made the AT&T code copyrightable, the code was essentially in the public domain.

the version that was included in Linux seems to be from System V.

So, yes, SGI could have copied the 32V code, but they didn't.

Or they could have copied the Unix Version 3 code, if they'd included the copyright and license notices, but they didn't.

But they had no right to copy the System V code at all.

Perens is right:

In this case, there was an error in the Linux developer's process (at SGI),

It turns out that we have a legal right to use the code in question

Blake Stowell, SCO's PR Director, told the Linux Journal that the 2002 licensing of 'Ancient Unix' code was for non-commercial use only. And only for 16-bit. The folks at Linux Journal were quick to point out that the 2002 announcement letter said no such thing:

"The text of the letter, sent January 23, 2002 by Bill Broderick, Director of Licensing Services for Caldera, in fact makes no mention of "non-commercial use" restrictions, does not include the words "non-commercial use" anywhere and specifically mentions "32-bit 32V Unix" as well as the 16-bit versions. "

When confronted with the facts, how dows Mr. Stowell respond? "That is what I was told by Chris Sontag." Impressive. Boy I would love to hear him say that in court!

Y'know, I'm wondering if we aren't doing SCO a favor by pointing out the glaring errors in SCO's wackier-by-the-minute assertions. People are very concerned about countering the lies being ground out by SCO. I know I am. But what if this is more than just PR fluff? What if they are really so detached from reality, and so incompetent in knowing their own history, that they really believe what they're saying? Then just let them spout off. Don't correct them. Let them hang themselves the moment they step into court. If they tried this argument in front of a judge I think the entire suit would be summarily dismissed (IANAL).

The second one is code is VERY old...

See here, and here.

How many textbook references do you think you can come up with?

Bruce Perens pointed out over at lwn.net that Caldera put this particular code under a BSD license in 2000.

Actually, that's 4.4BSD Lite, released in 1994... there was no 4.1BSD Lite, and 4.1BSD is from 1981, long predating the 1992 USL vs. BSDI lawsuit.

This is due to the 1993 lawsuit settlement. SCO is contrained by that settlement as well.

The lawsuit was settled on February 4, 1994. Check the announcement.

P.S. The BSD Family Tree.

Actually, it's a little more complicated than that, as you can see here but for the most part, you're right. OpenBSD started as a fork off of NetBSD, and Darwin was a fork off of FreeBSD 3.2. All the BSDs took code from both BSD4.3 and BSD4.4. NextStep which became Rhapsody, then later OSX was somehow left out of the bsd family tree, I found, but I'm not quite sure how that fits in the picture anyhow. I think it was based on BSD4.3 somehow, and might have been the first use of the mach kernel in a BSD based operating system.