Samizdat's critics... Brown replies

Alexis de Tocqueville Institute ^ | 4 June 2004 | Ken Brown

[Caesar Soze]

Samizdat is a series of excerpts from an upcoming book on open source and operating systems that will be published later this year. AdTI did not publish Samizdat with the expectation that rabidly pro-Linux developers would embrace it. Its purpose is to provide U.S. leadership with a researched presentation on attribution and intellectual property problems with the hybrid source code model, particularly Linux. It is our hope that leadership would find this document helpful with public policy decisions regarding its future investment in Linux and other hybrid source products.

The United States is the home of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, an internationally respected agency which contributes to the worldwide effort to protect and govern intellectual property. In addition, the U.S. government is one of the largest patent holders in the world, owning the rights to 20-30,000 patents. Annually, the U.S. government also contributes billions to hi-tech research and development because research and development supports our intellectual property economy. Therefore, it is in the U.S. government’s best interest to fully understand the impact of Linux on the intellectual property foundation of our country, as well as the entire information technology (IT) sector.

[Caesar Soze]

This guy is still clueless. The tone of the article swings from, "We write briefs for US leadership," to "We write for any audience, including grade school children, Vrije University is cool and fun to visit!" Brown claims that Linux is siphoning away good American software value, but suggests that our government fund BSD/MIT-licensed software research in Amsterdam. Brown continues to confuse "operating system" with "kernel," and "experimental kernel that runs on the author's hardware, just barely" with "production kernel." The whole article is a mess of internal inconsistencies with a few spelling and grammatical errors thrown in for flavor.

[ScuzzyTerminator]

In a related article from Groklaw:

Dennis Ritchie's Interview for Samizdat

Tuesday, June 01 2004 @ 09:25 PM EDT

Dennis Ritchie was mentioned in the AdTI press release about Ken Brown's forthcoming book, "Samizdat", the book attacking Linus for not "inventing" Linux. As you will recall, the press release said the author's book was based on "extensive interviews" with Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie and Andrew Tanenbaum:

"In one of the few extensive studies on the source of open source code, Kenneth Brown, president of AdTI, traces the free software movement over three decades -- from its romantic but questionable beginnings, through its evolution to a commercial effort that draws on unpaid contributions from thousands of programmers. Brown's account is based on extensive interviews with more than two dozen leading technologists including Richard Stallman, Dennis Ritchie, and Andrew Tanenbaum."

Today, Dr. Ritchie told me that was overstating it, at least with respect to himself:

"I think that the teaser for it, mentioning extensive interviews with me among others, is overblown in my case. Brown sent an initial (email) probe asking for an interview, in response to which we invited AdTI to send some sample questions (which I answered). This happened just before Brown's visit to Tanenbaum. The only other interaction was a brief phone call from a staffer who asked only about a couple of fact things: how many lines of code in some early kernel, what date was it released."

So in his case, the "extensive interviews" consisted of one email. Here it is in its entirety, with his prologue to me, published with his permission. You will see Brown repeatedly trying to elicit negative responses from Ritchie, who replies at one point: "the specifications for Unix were always quite open". Mr. Brown, therefore, put out a press release saying something very different from what he was told by Dennis Ritchie, from my reading. Our thanks to Dr. Ritchie for putting this information on the public record.

*****************************

Brown sent an initial (email) probe asking for an interview, in response to which we invited AdTI to send some sample questions (which I answered). This happened just before Brown's visit to Tanenbaum. The only other interaction was a brief phone call from a staffer who asked only about a couple of fact things: how many lines of code in some early kernel, what date was it released.

The main communication was this, from me to Brown:

====

1) Tell me what the environment was like after ATT/Western Electric decided that they didn't want the Lyon's book around. How did you react to the Lyon's Book and its subsequent recall?

We in the research group reacted with great pleasure to Lions's book; it was very well done. Indeed the early Unix Support Group (that became USL etc.) were pleased as well, and in fact invited Lions for a couple of stays with them to help annotate more documentation. Lions also visited us later in the research group and did some annotation on early Plan 9.

What was decided from the licensing point of view (after 6th edition) was that teaching whole classes from the source might be worrisome, and I think he was asked not to continue doing this. The original book was never officially published except within UNSW for his course; however it was reprinted by AT&T for internal purposes and it was also was made available to AT&T/WEco Unix licensees. Lions was disappointed that things changed so that he couldn't teach courses from a newer edition, but I don't recall any animus.

As you may know, the 6th edition source and Lions's commentary about it was formally reprinted and published by Peer-to-Peer, which seems to have morphed into Annabooks, in 1997. Of course this was after much water had passed under the bridge, in particular after the earlier SCO had bought the rights from Novell, so it was SCO who approved this publication.

2) People say that the earliest version of Linux 1.0 had a very similar resemblance, line for line to Unix? What did you recall?

I have no idea whether this is true, since I've never looked, but I doubt it.

3) Have you ever discussed the Minix/Linux migration or any other topic with Professor Tannenbaum in Finland? What are your thoughts about his decision to create Minix based on Unix, regardless of the efforts by ATT to restrict its use?

Since you've visited him, you know that Andrew Tanenbaum was and is at VU in Amsterdam. About the similarity and "restriction": the specifications for Unix were always quite open. Tanenbaum, in Minix, wanted to use the specification but with his own outlook for didactic, research and release purposes. I don't think AT&T ever bothered him. He (like Lions) spent time with us more than once during the writing of his later books.

4) There is something missing in the legal history of Unix to Minix to Linux to me. Help me understand a few things:

1) ATT was obviously angry that Unix code was going everywhere at once. Did they look at Linux? Did they look at Minix? Why didn't they feel either products were copyright violations?

I don't think that they were seriously looked at, and I don't think that AT&T was angry. Both Minix earlier and Linux a bit later took pains to avoid copyright issues and use documented and, by that time, probably internationally standardized interfaces. In the case of Minix especially, the accent was also clearly in the research/academic area as opposed to commercial.

By the time they came along there was plenty of material like the SVID, Sys V Interface Definition, Maurice Bach's book and so on. AT&T and USL generally encouraged such public efforts. I can't recall the dates, but, for example, the company contributed to the IEEE POSIX standards effort.

2) In your opinion, why did ATT lose its case against Berkeley?

This is the one case where USL did get angry enough to go to court. You will have to read the court's decision about it to see why USL lost (or at least didn't get what they wanted). In the event, the crucial decision by the court was to deny an immediate injunction against BSDi and UCB. Probably you've seen it, but the decision is at http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/930303.ruling.txt and it's probably best to let it speak for itself.

3) In my opinion, you wrote Unix (UNICS) from scratch. In my opinion, Linus Torvalds did NOT write Linux from scratch. What is you opinion? How much did he write? I talked to a Finnish programmer that insists that Linus had the Unix code (the Lyon's Book) and Minix code. Without those two, who could not have even come close to writing Linux. I hate to ask such a bare-knuckle question, but I really feel that this part of history is very gray.

Say what you feel is ok to say.

We did indeed write Unix from scratch (though with intellectual influence from aspects of Multics and other systems). I don't know what Torvalds started with or what he had read. It seems plausible from his writings that he was distancing himself more from Minix than Unix as such. See, for example, http://people.fluidsignal.com/~luferbu/misc/Linus_vs_Tanenbaum.html

4) Could I get a copy of the original version of Unix that was released? My team is comparing Linux 1.0, Minix 1.0 and your first versions. If you can help with this, let me know.

We have only parts of the earliest releases. www.tuhs.org has a good collection of what is available, including a version of the kernel from ca. 1973, and also partially complete renditions of 5th through 7th editions. The earliest available material (from 1973) is at http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Nsys/sys/nsys/

Dennis

[First_Salute]

Some things that I found online.

For your *Who's Who in Investing in The Intellectual Property Economy* files (other than the obvious, Kenneth Brown):

http://www.ekms.com/edkahn_bio.html

A book, *Hidden Value: Profiting from the Intellectual Property Economy*:

http://www.biz-lib.com/ZEMB323.html

An intro (of sorts) to the "Central Intellectual Property and International Trade Court":

http://www.thaigov.go.th/news/speech/chuan/sp30nov98.htm

... "Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, or TRIPS, under the World Trade Organization"

In general, it seems that who you may call "intellectual property economy" advisors, investors, economists, and lawyers --- all, globalists --- are interested in using some vehicle with which they can force countries into "the world courts" so to speak; and they have happened upon Linux as a test case.

I have always suspected that David Boise interest in SCO, was to raise arguments that would "compel" the Congress to work toward establishing a Cabinet level Department of Computer Science.

I believe that Kenneth Brown, at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, is also making such a case, by his arguments arrayed against Linus Torvald.

[First_Salute]

Bump.

[First_Salute]

I cannot help but think that focusing government upon "the intellectual property economy" will mostly cause that economy to become the victim of what government does best: regulation.

It is one thing to submit a request for a patent, but quite another for people to submit all ideas in order to establish who owns what --- that all semblance is suspect and must, therefore, meet some OK from government overseers "expertise."

I doubt that and FDA for Computer Science will help earnings, to be blunt, in either the short or long run.

I also suspect, that investment advisors and economists and lawyers promoting before a board of directors, a scorched earth policy for isolating their, presumably, property, is some indication of a company that has otherwise run out of ideas on what to produce.

[First_Salute]

See Is Torvalds really the father of Linux? - CNET News.com, May 19, 2004, by Stephen Shankland:

"Microsoft indeed has provided funding to the Alexis de Tocqueville Institution for five years, a Microsoft representative said, without disclosing how much has been granted."

[snopercod]

Intellectual property? Tell it to the women who invented those icicle Christmas lights or the guy who invented the tie-wrap.

The term "intellectual property" applies only to the music industry.

[Golden Eagle]

I don't see what the big deal is, Brown claims Torvalds didn't "invent" Linux, and Linus Torvalds agrees. From the link in post #6:

Brown and Torvalds agree is that Torvalds shouldn't bear the title of Linux "inventor." "I'd agree that 'inventor' is not necessarily the right word," Torvalds said, to describe his role in Linux.

So there you go. The ultimate truth is without the existence of Unix, built right here in the grand old US of A, the kid from Finland would have never been able to build his little givaway clone. That is the fact of the matter that the real propeller heads don't want to have to admit. And whether Apple or Microsoft or whoever may have copied technology from wherever doesn't deny this fact, it only makes it more likely. All in all just more whining from the "community" of crybabies who won't be happy til everything starting with software is given to them for free.

[First_Salute]

Linux is being used by the lawyering class to drum up "the debate" about the "intellectual property economy" for the purpose of arming activist judges with "cause" for using the "internationale commerce clause of the Constitution."

The leftists are relying upon what the public does not know, nor understand about computer programming and UNIX, Minix, Linux ("they all sound the same to me"), just as the leftists have relied upon what the public does not know about the history behind the expressions, "public education," "promote the general welfare," "interstate commerce," and the entire, of each of the, Bill of Rights.

This "Linux thng" is the same as those FDR-Supreme Court cases that established "contemporary clauses" since Frankfurter et al, that have "ordered" the banning of prayer, the banning of the Pledge of Allegiance, the stripping of Christianity from our culture, etc.

That is why David Boise is in this thing up to his neck.

As Roe v. Wade, based upon the support of the "intellectual community" and some events that did, and other events that did not, happen, "established" an as yet unseen bolt of cloth traling from the Constitution, with which the Justices fashioned statements justifying mass murder of unborn babies --- that is, make extra-Constitutional law that is legal but not Constitutionally lawful --- there is now a whole lot of "intellectual property economy" money behind the effort to use "the Linux case" as "reasoning" for citing, again, the "internationale commerce clause of the Constitution."

That will lead to further Sandra Day O'Connor-isms.

[antiRepublicrat]

I don't see what the big deal is, Brown claims Torvalds didn't "invent" Linux, and Linus Torvalds agrees.

It was an exceptionally nice setup: claim something that was never under controversy, and when the other party admits you're right, claim victory.

The ultimate truth is without the existence of Unix, built right here in the grand old US of A, the kid from Finland would have never been able to build his little givaway clone.

See, you're doing that too. Creating a controversy that doesn't exist. Everyone who knows anything about Linux knows Linux is modeled after MINIX, which is modeled after UNIX. Brown is hoping that the suits won't know this and therefore think that Linux is somehow stolen technology.

But Brown is still harping on his disproven "the code was stolen" hypothesis. I notice that his rebuttal didn't include his researcher who said Brown is "talking out of his ass."

[ShadowAce]

Linux Tech Ping

[rdb3]

The Penguin Ping.

Wanna be Penguified? Just holla!

     .-.
     /v\    L   I   N   U   X
    // \\  >Phear the Penguin<
   /(   )\
    ^^-^^

Got root?

[B Knotts]

This is getting rather silly.

This "author" is obviously little more than an ignorant crank (albeit a well-financed one, courtesy Microsoft).

The real concern is that anyone pays any attention to him.

Well, I suppose when the SCO suit is dismissed with prejudice, he'll get less attention.

[Salo]

Mr. Brown will not find any knowledgeable source to give his misinformation any real weight - even the people he "interviewed" consider him to be a joke. He has no credibility and his discredited opinions are not worth discussing.

[Liberal Classic]

Minix was written by Andrew Tanenbaum of Vrije Universiteit, the Netherlands. Perhaps McBride should sue Mr. Tanenbaum?

[E. Pluribus Unum]

I believe that Kenneth Brown, at the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute, is also making such a case, by his arguments arrayed against Linus Torvald.

I believe that Kenneth Brown and the Alexis de Tocqueville Institute is one guy with a computer, a word processor, a $5 per month webhosting service and an FTP client.

[rdb3]

This is getting rather silly.

Brother, it's been past silly for a long time now.

THREE the hard way.

[Golden Eagle]

Brown is still harping on his disproven "the code was stolen" hypothesis.

Show me one place where Brown says "stolen". You can't, because he doesn't, yet all you people are just dying to claim he did.

[Golden Eagle]

Minix was written by Andrew Tanenbaum of Vrije Universiteit, the Netherlands. Perhaps McBride should sue Mr. Tanenbaum?

Perhaps he should, I for one don't much care for all these foreigners making clones of US products and giving them away for free in an attempt to destroy our software industry, but you need to have proof it was illegally done. If Tanenbaum used the Lions book, which he admits he did, and at some point copied parts of it into Minix, couldn't that qualify as an illegal clone? I'll admit I'm really not sure, ancient Unix isn't very interesting to me, either way.

[antiRepublicrat]

Show me one place where Brown says "stolen". You can't, because he doesn't,

Oh, I'm sorry, "borrow." Any way you slice it, he's saying Linus stole ("borrowed") code instead of writing the original kernel himself. And that's a lie.