 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The article doesn't explain itself very well. Was the publication of Unix source code 1) Authorised by bell labs ? 2) Not authorised or 3) Initially authorized but later rescinded ? What effect did this have on the legality (in the United States and elsewhere) on publishing and circulating the book. Were initial publication but not subsequent reprints permitted ? Could libraries stock/lend old copies ? What is the legal status now and have electronic versions appeared ? 94.0.215.193 ( talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
AT&T Bell Labs lawyers didn't authorize it (and never liked UNIX getting licensed before), but Ritchie, Thompson & other technical folks really wanted to see it get out there, and knew John, who did 3 sabbaticals at Bell Labs, first ~1978, i.e., he was on good terms with them. While lawyers were hassling him, we used his books for internal Bell Labs operating systems courses :-) We liked the idea that UNIX source code would permeate universities.
The Computer History Museum has bound copies of the 2 books, which I donated. They weren't my original copies, which I'd lent and never gotten back, but sometime during 1990s, before John's death in 1998, I visited him and he was kind enough to replace them, as well as sign them for me. JohnMashey ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
These are not opposing terms. The text should be rewritten to say "simple, high quality code." Daniel Callejas Sevilla ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The "You're not expected to understand this" snippet includes a '=&' operator, which seems to be in the cited text too. This isn't a real C operator; can anyone confirm whether that was in the book too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.123.122.250 ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Originally, "=&" was a legal C operator. My January 15, 1974 "C Reference Manual" (Dennis Ritchie) has it, along with "=+", "=-" etc. Those forms were still there in Brian Kernighan's May 6, 1974 "Programming in C: A Tutorial", which notes (p.25) that spaces are critical: x = -10 sets X to -10, x =- 10 subtracts 10 from x, as does x=-10. Brian wrote "This is quite contrary to the experience of most programmers." and "Newer versions of various compilers are courteous enough to warn you about the ambiguity." UNIX V6 was released outside Bell in 1975 and of course was written earlier.
By Ritchie's May 1, 1977 "C Reference Manual" (p.11) he wrote "Notice that the representation of the compound assignment operators has changed, formerly the "=" came first and the other operator came second (without any space). The compiler continues to accept the previous notation." I don't recall exactly when the new form was first accepted, but its use clearly removed the ambiguity and the old form disappeared. JohnMashey ( talk) 00:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the synopsis section looks as if it was lifted from the USENIX announcement (op cit.), but I am tired and don't want to work more on this right now. Someone should compare those, and probably in any case, just lift the exact wording from the announcement, but format it appropriately with credit, or if too different, just ignore me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:4146:600:2E1:50FF:FE00:256 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
"Note that the newsletter's own strongly worded circulation restriction notice, could only ever have applied within the framework of existing licenses to the licensees with agreements held with the mentioned organisations, not to non-licensees, as a matter of civil contract—the newsletter displays no evidence of governmental authority of the type which might allow general suppression of circulation, such as national security Top Secret classification.)" this is a comment on the content of the newsletter, which isn't represented here but given as a source. I find it strange to read such a long comment on a source text I haven't even opened, and if I were an editor I would tend to delete this. 46.15.213.23 ( talk) 08:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ 46.15.213.23 also this : "Although the license of 6th Edition[citation needed] allowed classroom use of the source code, the license of 7th Edition[citation needed] specifically excluded such use, so subsequent to this, the book, based on the more liberally licensed version, spread widely through copy machine reproductions, made arguably under various excuses, including (but not limited to!) generous educational licensing terms afforded the publishing institution by the source code owner[citation needed], as well as various copyright exemptions protecting discussion of mathematical work, though in the shadow of increasing political pressure to erode such rights, as technological means to ‘self-copy’ -- and even self-publish—works became cheaper, more efficient, and more prolific." good heavens, is this written by a German or some other person who got paid per comma ? this is one (1) sentence, it can hardly be excused as readable? 46.15.213.23 ( talk) 08:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
|
| This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
The article doesn't explain itself very well. Was the publication of Unix source code 1) Authorised by bell labs ? 2) Not authorised or 3) Initially authorized but later rescinded ? What effect did this have on the legality (in the United States and elsewhere) on publishing and circulating the book. Were initial publication but not subsequent reprints permitted ? Could libraries stock/lend old copies ? What is the legal status now and have electronic versions appeared ? 94.0.215.193 ( talk) 23:12, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
AT&T Bell Labs lawyers didn't authorize it (and never liked UNIX getting licensed before), but Ritchie, Thompson & other technical folks really wanted to see it get out there, and knew John, who did 3 sabbaticals at Bell Labs, first ~1978, i.e., he was on good terms with them. While lawyers were hassling him, we used his books for internal Bell Labs operating systems courses :-) We liked the idea that UNIX source code would permeate universities.
The Computer History Museum has bound copies of the 2 books, which I donated. They weren't my original copies, which I'd lent and never gotten back, but sometime during 1990s, before John's death in 1998, I visited him and he was kind enough to replace them, as well as sign them for me. JohnMashey ( talk) 00:10, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
These are not opposing terms. The text should be rewritten to say "simple, high quality code." Daniel Callejas Sevilla ( talk) 10:39, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
The "You're not expected to understand this" snippet includes a '=&' operator, which seems to be in the cited text too. This isn't a real C operator; can anyone confirm whether that was in the book too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.123.122.250 ( talk) 21:34, 28 April 2017 (UTC)
Originally, "=&" was a legal C operator. My January 15, 1974 "C Reference Manual" (Dennis Ritchie) has it, along with "=+", "=-" etc. Those forms were still there in Brian Kernighan's May 6, 1974 "Programming in C: A Tutorial", which notes (p.25) that spaces are critical: x = -10 sets X to -10, x =- 10 subtracts 10 from x, as does x=-10. Brian wrote "This is quite contrary to the experience of most programmers." and "Newer versions of various compilers are courteous enough to warn you about the ambiguity." UNIX V6 was released outside Bell in 1975 and of course was written earlier.
By Ritchie's May 1, 1977 "C Reference Manual" (p.11) he wrote "Notice that the representation of the compound assignment operators has changed, formerly the "=" came first and the other operator came second (without any space). The compiler continues to accept the previous notation." I don't recall exactly when the new form was first accepted, but its use clearly removed the ambiguity and the old form disappeared. JohnMashey ( talk) 00:34, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
The wording of the synopsis section looks as if it was lifted from the USENIX announcement (op cit.), but I am tired and don't want to work more on this right now. Someone should compare those, and probably in any case, just lift the exact wording from the announcement, but format it appropriately with credit, or if too different, just ignore me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:44B8:4146:600:2E1:50FF:FE00:256 ( talk) 13:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
"Note that the newsletter's own strongly worded circulation restriction notice, could only ever have applied within the framework of existing licenses to the licensees with agreements held with the mentioned organisations, not to non-licensees, as a matter of civil contract—the newsletter displays no evidence of governmental authority of the type which might allow general suppression of circulation, such as national security Top Secret classification.)" this is a comment on the content of the newsletter, which isn't represented here but given as a source. I find it strange to read such a long comment on a source text I haven't even opened, and if I were an editor I would tend to delete this. 46.15.213.23 ( talk) 08:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
- @ 46.15.213.23 also this : "Although the license of 6th Edition[citation needed] allowed classroom use of the source code, the license of 7th Edition[citation needed] specifically excluded such use, so subsequent to this, the book, based on the more liberally licensed version, spread widely through copy machine reproductions, made arguably under various excuses, including (but not limited to!) generous educational licensing terms afforded the publishing institution by the source code owner[citation needed], as well as various copyright exemptions protecting discussion of mathematical work, though in the shadow of increasing political pressure to erode such rights, as technological means to ‘self-copy’ -- and even self-publish—works became cheaper, more efficient, and more prolific." good heavens, is this written by a German or some other person who got paid per comma ? this is one (1) sentence, it can hardly be excused as readable? 46.15.213.23 ( talk) 08:42, 7 January 2024 (UTC)