decoration decoration

When you want to know more...
For layout only
Site Map
About Groklaw
Legal Research
ApplevSamsung p.2
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Gordon v MS
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
MS Litigations
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
OOXML Appeals
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v Novell
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Unix Books


Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.

You won't find me on Facebook


Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:29 PM EDT

Here are excerpts from the Deposition of SCO employee Erik W. Hughes [PDF]. It's a large PDF, so be patient. Our thanks to Frank Sorenson for picking up this deposition and scanning it for us.

Hold on to your hats. He confirms that the Linux Kernel Personality did indeed include Linux kernel code, and as a result, both UnixWare 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 included Linux kernel code until May of 2003.

While Hughes testifies that in addition to the obvious candidates (Caldera's Linux distributions), two releases of UnixWare included the Linux kernel in some way, as part of the LKP -- and of course, such inclusion would have to be under the GPL -- yet the question that is left unanswered, tantalizingly, by the deposition is this: in what way was the Linux kernel "included" in LKP? Did the UnixWare kernel somehow make use of the Linux kernel binary? If so, how -- and would the use be intimate enough to have created a "work based on the program" as the GPL puts it? If not, how was the kernel "included"? Was kernel source code reused in the UnixWare kernel, as one anonymous source claimed to eWeek's Peter Galli long ago? We don't have totally firm answers to these questions from this deposition alone, but IBM probably does, and we're definitely getting warmer. And more and more, it looks like SCO's goose is cooked.

No wonder SCO is now talking about trying to survive as a tech company even if they lose the litigation. It also is now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional, void, voidable, etc., anything to try to make it not be binding on them. Please don't anyone ever again tell me that we don't need the GPL. Look at the role this champion license has played in SCO v. the World.

You will also enjoy the questions and answers about Linux being available long after SCO said they had stopped distributing. You probably won't enjoy hearing SCO employees calling geeks "longhaired smellies."

Here is the segment from page 4 of the PDF about the LKP:


Q. To your knowledge, do any of the other products -- or do any of the products listed on Page 16, in addition to Linux Technology Preview, include the 2.4 kernel?

A: There was a release of SCO UnixWare release 7.1.2 that included the Linux kernel personality and SCO Linux-release 7.1.3 included the Linux kernel personality. At first when it first shipped it did include the Linux kernel packages which were subsequently removed.

Q: Which kernel packages did they include?

A: The Linux kernel packages. I -- I don't know which specific ones.

Q: Would it have been a Version 2.4 or higher?

A: Yes.

Q: During what period of time did those products -- that is, the Linux kernel personality -- include the Linux kernel? . . .

A: UnixWare 7 Release 7.1.2 shipped somewhere after the consummation of the transaction between Caldera and acquiring the assets from SCO, so the date is late 2001 or early 2002.

Q: Okay. And what about 7.1.3? . . .

A: Yes. It -- 7.1.3 included the Linux operating system, including the Linux kernel packages, until SCO suspended Linux and removed those packages from the media kit.

Q: Which was when?

A: Which was May of last year.

Q: So until May of last year, Unix -- those two UnixWare 7 releases included the Linux kernel?

A: That's correct.


Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code | 350 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
OT Comments here
Authored by: jdg on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:42 PM EDT
OT comments here

SCO is trying to appropriate the "commons"; don't let them [IANAL]

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections here
Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:46 PM EDT

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Jaywalk on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:49 PM EDT
in what way was the Linux kernel "included" in LKP?
That's the big question. If he means that the kernal source code was merged with other code, the resulting product would have to be open-sourced to make it compliant. However, it's possible that the Linux kernal was left in binary form and run under a virtual machine. If so, there would have been no merger of products, so I don't think the GPL would apply to the result.

===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====

[ Reply to This | # ]

so, Linux did have SCO's code in it
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:50 PM EDT
Never mind that SCO stole it from Linux to begin with.
Buh Bye Darl and Co. you really blew it now.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: a.spengler on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT
Q: Now, you'll agree that the Linux kernel is distributed pursuant to the GPL,
A: That's right.
Q: And you'll also agree that the Linux Operating System is distributed pursuant
to the GPL?
A: No.

What sort of a dumbhead is this guy?


[ Reply to This | # ]

They would need gcc and binutils too
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 02:54 PM EDT

The kernel must be compiled with gcc, and binutils would probably be needed too. And of course modutils is needed as well.

Sounds more like they use a Linux system, on which they are running a few of their binaries.

But when they replaced the Linux kernel with their own, old SVR6 kernel; how much Linux code did they need to copy to get it to work? The SVR6 was famous for its lack of drivers.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Objection to Form
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:02 PM EDT
Mr. Heise seems to jump in with "Objection to form" followed by
"you may answer" a lot. What does this mean/imply?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Calling all SCO customers!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:05 PM EDT
Anyone got a copy of UnixWare 7.1.2 or 7.1.3?

[ Reply to This | # ]

LKP in Legend !?
Authored by: atul on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:07 PM EDT
There's been some evidence uncovered suggesting that at least parts of LKP have survived to the present day, cleverly hidden within OpenServer 6. Here are a couple of Yahoo posts ( first post. second post. )by someone who poked pretty heavily on an OSR6 box, and found a number of things that give cause for suspicion.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ESR is wrong....
Authored by: Latesigner on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:16 PM EDT
We thought it and now we can prove it.
Don't weaken the GPL.

The only way to have an "ownership" society is to make slaves of the rest of us.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I bet they didn't want *that* out!
Authored by: cybervegan on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:18 PM EDT
One of the earliest questions posed on Groklaw was "Ok, so they accuse
Linux of stealing code from UNIX, but what if they've stolen code from Linux and
put it into UNIX?"

I'm aghast. 8-|

They've got some nerve. Talk about cynical. Can a class action be brought for
libel and/or slander? Probably a daft idea, but I feel *SO* insulted -- and I
can't imagine how the kernel developers will feel at hearing this news.


Software source code is a bit like underwear - you only want to show it off in
public if it's clean and tidy. Refusal could be due to embarrassment or shame...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Love it!
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT
and we're definitely getting warmer. And more and more, it looks like SCO's
goose is cooked.

PJ, did you mean to juxtapose those two?



[ Reply to This | # ]

What does the GPL cover?
Authored by: cmc on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:20 PM EDT
Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought the GPL covered a project
as a whole, source code and binaries (not just source code)? So if SCO even
only provided the binaries, wouldn't they have to provide the source for those
binaries, according to the GPL? If they didn't merge the GPL'd source code with
UnixWare, then they wouldn't have to license UnixWare under the GPL, but they
would still have to provide the source for the GPL'd Linux kernel packages they
used. And since that was 2001-2002, wouldn't they still have to provide the
kernel source, according to the provisions of the GPL?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: blacklight on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:31 PM EDT
"It also is now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional,
void, voidable, etc., anything to try to make it not be binding on them"

Anyone would would be embarrassed to make such a boldly dumb statement in front
of a single person. Darl the Snarl not only put it in print, but mailed it as an
open letter to each member of the US Congress. Moral: don't tell just friends
and family that you are a fool: let the whole wide world know about it, too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Technical knowledge
Authored by: Nick_UK on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:32 PM EDT
Just having a brief 'speed read' through this, it really
seems the IBM guys are really technically knowledgeable -
everything that seems to be asked was a 'test' to see if
the witness was telling the truth.

Great read :-)


[ Reply to This | # ]

Question re cast of characters, and representation?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 03:48 PM EDT
At one point, Hughes asks if one of Greenwald's questions is relevant to the
material that Hughes has been dsignated to answer for SCO.
Heise anwers that they are not, but that Greenwald has the right to ask them,
and that Hughes' answer is not binding on SCO. Heise then says Hughes may
anwswer the question.

So, if Hughes is NOT a SCO represnetative when answering those particlular
questins, he is apparently only representing himsalf, and his interestes may be
at odds with SCO?

Meaning that Heise has a conflict of interest in representing Hughes on those
issues? Is this correct?

It seems to me that Hughes would need Heise, representing SCO and Hughes as a
designate for SCO, but would ALSO need his own separate attorney, to represent
Hughes on the questions where Hughes is NOT speaking for SCO. And I dont see
anyone else in teh cast of hcaracters.

Am I missing something?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 04:21 PM EDT
I cannot wait till Darl and friends fade away and takes what use to be an okay
company with them. I hope they get jail time.

Long Haired Smelly People need not apply.

Isn't that how the song goes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Obscure terms for coders
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Has anyone heard the term Long-haired smellies applied to coders before? I thought it was an epithet reserved for environmentalists and whatever people think "hippies" are this year. A google search for "long-haired smellies" didn't turn much up (except message board posts about SCO from 2003). "long-haired smelly" worked a little better but appeared to show pretty much the trend I expected, where unfavorable discussion about environmentalists was the norm. Amusing to highlight for the conspiracy theorists is a Redmond Magazine editorial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why does deposition PDF cut off at Page 17?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 04:52 PM EDT
When I download the PDF, it quits at page 17 but from reading the text it does
not appear to be actually finished at that point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This explains everything!
Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 05:51 PM EDT
No wonder they found lines and lines of copied code in Linux!

They copied it from Linux into their products. Their business model is now fully exposed:

  1. Copy FOSS software into their proprietary code.
  2. Show the identical code to non-techies under strict NDA.
  3. Make a big FUD fuss and launch law suits.
  4. ????
  5. Profit!

Anyone who has the power to make you believe absurdities has the power to make you commit injustices.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Un-clean hands? LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 06:23 PM EDT
What are the legal ramifications of this for an un-clean hands defense?

IANAL in the slightest, but I certainly wonder about this point.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Bas Burger on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 06:33 PM EDT
If the implication is right then Linux owns parts of unixware now? Is this good



[ Reply to This | # ]

It All Depends On What The Definition of "Used" Is
Authored by: Avada Kedavra on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 06:42 PM EDT
From eWeek

"But Blake Stowell, a spokesman for SCO, told eWEEK on Tuesday that while the LKP used some open-source components, this did not constitute open sourcing that product. 'That is a false notion. SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code in the LKP and thus has not violated the GPL. We have also never contributed Unix source code to the Linux kernel,' he said."

[ Reply to This | # ]

Does this mean they will have to release all their source code?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:08 PM EDT
For the versions that included the kernel?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Long-haired smellies? Remember, Nazis wore ties
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 07:26 PM EDT

Every time I read or hear about how dirty and smelly some people are, apparently
including Linux supporters, I just remember that the Nazis wore ties. Always
puts things in perspective.

Cleanliness is NOT next to Godliness.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Contract statement, always amusing
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:08 PM EDT

Document page 8, scan page 52, bottom answer:

We've always been a company that wanted to uphold our contracts
Every time a current SCOG employee states that, it makes me laugh. Question for those individuals: are you upholding the contract in relation to both IBM and Novell? For example, with regard to the Novell contract: if the MS and Sun licenses are actually Unix, what happened to the royalties that were supposed to go to Novell?

On what grounds was the IBM non-revokable contract terminated? Was it actually due to IBM releasing pure IBM written code into Linux? If so, how can SCOG claim any ownership over code that does NOT belong to them? Control due to contract obligations is one thing, but ownership???


[ Reply to This | # ]

GPL is like Judo
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 08:33 PM EDT
In Judo (and Akido, etc.), you use the enemy's power against them, often to flip
or throw them somehow. The more force they put behind a blow, the more painful
it may be when you redirect it on them.

The GPL is like this. Whereas in BSD-style licenses, the code is left open and
undefended against SCO-like entities, the GPL is protected by the very same
draconian copyright laws some of us find overreaching. And they can't stop us
by making copyright even more draconian--we play by the same terms they do, and
the stronger they make it, the more restrictive the GPL becomes.

But, ironically, were they to do away with copyright law to void all licenses,
everything would become, in effect, BSD-like.

It reminds me of game theory in something like the Prisoner's Dillema--yes,
everyone playing nice *is* the best possible outcome, but the dominant strategy
is to wipe out the nice guys by playing "mean" ... Oops. Now, if you
shift to a tit-for-tat style strategy, you cooperate with the cooperators
(fellow GPL licensed programs) but not with those who do not cooperate (closed,
proprietary type programs). Why? Suddenly, the dominant strategy becomes your
strategy, even beating out those closed-only types (provided, of course, that
there are at least enough of you to likely meet and play against, or in your
case, with, others of like strategy). Thus, while the naive be nice strategy
will wither and die in the face of competition, being subsumed by the others,
the tit-for-tat style strategy will eventually dominate all other strategies,
and, ideally, lead to the situation where everyone does "play nice"
all the time. At least if they're smart they will. Otherwise, not unlike SCO,
they end up extinct...

[ Reply to This | # ]

Told You So
Authored by: kurtwall on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 10:19 PM EDT

This should be a surprise to no one. I'll quote from an email discussing CD layouts for UnixWare 7 that dates to late 2000. I've XXXXed out names to protect the innocent and the guilty:

From Mon Dec 11
21:41:24 2000
(qmail 9431 invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2000 04:41:23 -0000
Received: from by with scan4virus
-0.50 (uvscan:
v4.0.70/v4077. . Clean. Processed in 0.299258 secs); 11/12/2000
Received: (qmail 9416
invoked by uid 0); 12 Dec 2000 04:41:22 -0000
Received: from by with scan4virus
-0.50 (uvscan:
v4.0.70/v4077. . Clean. Processed in 0.220956 secs); 11/12/2000
Received: from (root@
  by with SMTP; 12 Dec 2000 04:41:22 -0000
Received: from ( [
        by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id VAA20524;
        Mon, 11 Dec
2000 21:41:22 -0700
Received: from (edo@localhost
        by (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id
        Mon, 11 Dec 2000 21:41:21 -0700
X-Mailer: exmh
version 2.1.0 09/18/1999

Subject: Re: [Fwd: LKP integration onto OpenLinux Server CD]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Mon, 11
Dec 2000 21:41:21 -0700
Status: RO
Content-Length: 3330

Here's the info on the placement of the LKP components. It's not to pretty
having so many files in the root of the CD ... oh well.

XXXXX/XXXX, please take
the lead to coordinate inclusion of the LKP components into our build.

-later, XXX

------- Forwarded Message

Date:    Mon, 11 Dec 2000
18:22:39 -0800
Subject: Re: [Fwd: LKP integration onto OpenLinux Server CD]


XXXXXXX asked me to send you information about the current directory
structure for the LTP/LKP CD.

Due to the UW7 scoadmin application installer
limitations (and that of the pkgadd utility) we are forced to unpack the
packages into their prospective directories at the top level of the cd. So
unfortunately we can not put all the LKP pieces under a LKP/ directory. The
recent decision to replace the single patch ptf7603 with the UW7 maintanance 
set (set71101) has definitely added to the unwieldliness of  the layout.

once again this "top level" layout is the only solution  for being able to use
the GUI based installer. 

Here is a current snapshot of the directory structure
including the Caldera


[long list of
patches elided]


If there is any more
information you need or want please let me know!


So, not only were parts of the kernel being distributed, but also a large number of other GPLed packages (which might be "mere aggregation").

[ Reply to This | # ]

Long Hair title goes to legacy Unix
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:18 PM EDT
I can't speak to the smelly part but as for hair, just compare a picture of
Dennis Richie in the early '70s with a picture of Linux Torvalds in the late

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is likely nothing. really.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 09 2005 @ 11:34 PM EDT
the technical reasons why this is not what you probably think it is. (GPL
violation, copying, etc).

all major unixes have emulation layers. *BSD, solaris, AIX, HPUX.. etc.

the emulation layers works by intercepting all communication from the
application (ie: your cool linux only binary). And faking out the application to
force it into thinking it is really talking to a linux kernel.

So the app sends out a request for some file on disk. the host kernel grabs that
syscall and will transform it into a syscall/io request/irq that will actually
work on the host system. Do you need to incorporate linux code to make this
translation work? You might take a peek to see how the actually fields are being
used, but it _really_ dosent help you. Because you are dealing with how the
_host_ system implements this syscall, you cant use any of the linux code
because that code only works in a _linux_ kernel not *BSD/whatever you are
really on.

emulation layers are a OS version of a speech translation box. Does the box
contain a verbatium version of a book when you translate it? no. It just has
mapping that say upon input of this form linux_syscall(char * var, int * var2)
execute it on the host bsd system as
bsd_syscall(char *var, int linux_compat_flag, int * var2)

the worst that can come out of this is the _format_ of the system calls. for
that they would have to look at the kernel headers files and duplicate the
structs in their code. This is why you have heard about the *one-line* stuff
they need the translation entries.

ps: all the *bsd have linux emulation layers and they have not used a single
line of linux kernel code. Because there would be no where to _put_ it.

pps: ripping off other peoples code to put in your own programs is usually
limited to algorithms, functions. OS are too different internally to allow for
code swapping. Does the parts from a 89 Ford mustang help you out when you need
a part for you 2005 BMW?


[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 02:20 AM EDT
Maybe that is why it is called the General *Public* License.
or maybe it is suppsoed to read *General Public* License.

So that you won't have to check with every author for permission.

This is also what protects each author, and allows some companies to release a
commercial version, and a GPL version of their software, without fear of someone
appropriating their IP to use beyond what GPL allows. MYSql does this as far as
I know, maybe others too.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: DaveJakeman on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 06:37 AM EDT
We've seen what happend to Sandeep Gupta after he said what some people inside
SCO wanted him to say; let's now see what happens to Erik Hughes.

By the way, how well does my sig apply on this fine day?

Should one hear an accusation, first look to see how it might be levelled at the

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: lordmhoram on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 06:43 AM EDT
Page 85:

"Q. Directing your attention to the last line, what are the Linux RPMs? A.
That's the common packaging mechanism for Linux packages, is to package them as
an RPM. Q. Do you know what that's an acronym for? A. Stand for RPM package

Erm - no. It stands for RedHat package manager. Presumably Mr. Hughes couldn't
mention that without opening yet another can of worms?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: heretic on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 10:23 AM EDT
Q. Did Caldera ever make a profit from the sale of Linux products?

A. There was -- Caldera in its -- the years that I joined the company, was a development company, and they were -- the objective of the company was not profitability.

Source: page 34

How can they claim 5 billion ????


[ Reply to This | # ]

So to summarize
Authored by: Viv on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 10:26 AM EDT
SCO launched a series of law suits based on the evidence of code comparison
that they made possible in the first place by copying parts of Linux in to their

own product and then not doing due diligence on how it got there.

This is probably going to become a classic example of incompetence and
greed in business management and the subsequent case handling by an

When things are written down in black and white you still have to make sure
you read what is written down on the page! not what you think is written or
you want to be written.

Wishful reading is a curse we all suffer from at one time or another, the smell

of money just makes it more likely to happen:-)


Is it me or what!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 11:58 AM EDT
All you guys getting on your high horse about this, will you ACTUALLY READ that
interview extract. Understand what the LKP is, and what was on the LKP.

The LKP was a bit of SCO emulation/simulation, whatever, software that allowed
you to run native Linux binaries on SCO Unixware. ON THE CD WERE A BIG BUNCH OF



(In triplicate so people get the message).


[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 12:11 PM EDT
The LKP is still available in Unixware 7.1.4 if you have a prior release of the
LKP from either 7.1.2 or 7.1.3. So basically they're shipping the LKP with the
current versions of the OS.

[ Reply to This | # ]

so, feed SCO their own medicine!
Authored by: energyman on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 01:13 PM EDT

IBM, NOVEL and REDHAT should ask for all revisions (also
internal versions), of SCO's Unix-products to search for illegal
incorporated code!
Oh, and a preliminary injunction, forcing SCO to stop
delivering their software would be cool, too.

Since SCO is allowed to dive into IBM's AIX and Dynix code,
this seems to be just and logical....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Erik Hughes Deposition: LKP Did Include Linux Kernel Code
Authored by: tomg_66 on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 01:13 PM EDT
At Santa Cruz, there was an employee that for a school project wrote a GPLed
package called lxrun. It's purpose was to allow linux binaries to run on (at
least) UnixWare. I submitted a patch or two to that project, and at the time I
didn't recognize any code specific to the Linux kernel. If I understand what
the LKP is, it is just a more complete and robust implementation of lxrun.
Whether it was a re-write or based on the GPLed lxrun code, I don't know. But
my impression was that it didn't contain kernel code.

Tom Green
(no, not -that-
tom green)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 05:46 PM EDT
I love the part where he is explaining that they had to leave the Linux Kernel
available on the FTP site because they had to honor their contractual
obligations to all those customers who had been using their Linux products for
the last twenty years...

<condensed for easy reading>
Q: So you were still distributing the Linux kernel as of <date>?
A: Well, we had customers who had been using our product for 20-25 years, and we
felt we had contractual obligations to them.

Q: Caldera was formed when?
A: 1994.

Q: So these 20-25 year customers were from where?
A: Er, well, we acquired them from the contracts with ATT, USL, Novell and SCO.

Q: Those would be UNIX contracts?
A: er... ummmmm... ah....

I've been waiting all along for that 25 year SCO history to be brought up.
Despite all their attempts to blur the line between NewSCO and all its
predecessors, they keep running into the problem that half their fantasy
requires they be one company, and the other half requires them to be several.
And now they don't even remember which half is which, and they're tripping over
their own lies.

Better than any sitcom!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Penguin Flock Away -- transcription claims here
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 10 2005 @ 05:47 PM EDT
I've done pages 9-12 (p 3) and pages 13-16 (p 4).

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )