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
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

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

Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal

User Functions



Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

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.

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Monday, July 31 2006 @ 03:56 PM EDT

I have some pictures to show you. They should knock your socks off. They should knock SCO's socks off, too, and then they should knock a huge chunk out of SCO's case. I'm quite serious. Here is what three individuals have now written to me, with screenshots to prove what they have found:

SCO is right now itself distributing the ELF headers files it is suing IBM over. They are available to the public with no legal notice, from SCO's FTP site, and furthermore, the license on the files is the GPL.

Let me show you, please.

First, let's review what SCO has claimed. In this document, Exhibit G [PDF], which was attached to a letter from SCO attorney Brent Hatch to IBM attorney Todd Shaughnesy dated 4-19-04, in turn attached to the Declaration of Todd M. Shaughnessy [PDF] in support of IBM's cross motion for partial summary judgment on its claim for declaratory judgment of non-infringement back in the spring of 2004, SCO listed ELF headers files from binutils and it claimed the following:

1. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never contributed or authorized these lines of code or the documentation related thereto, for use in Linux as specified under part 0, or any other provision, of the GPL.

2. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never granted a license to any party that knowingly authorized use of these files or lines of code outside a UNIX-based distribution.

Never. Never ever, ever? You promise? Or were you crossing your fingers behind your back when you said that?

Then their expert mentioned ELF too. In SCO's Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion to Confine SCO's Claims to, and Strike Allegations in Excess of, The Final Disclosures [PDF], SCO summarized Dr. Thomas Cargill's conclusions:

Dr. Thomas Cargill, a software consultant and former computer science professor and UNIX developer, concludes in his report that Linux 2.4 and 2.6 and LiS Streams (collectively "Linux") are substantially similar to the Unix System V Release 4 operating system ("SVr4"), and therefore, that Linux infringes copyrights of SVr4. (Ex. 3 at 3.) In reaching this conclusion, and by applying the applicable legal test, he further opines that Linux is a substantial copy of UNIX System V Release 4 ("SVr4") because it appropriated the essential structure of UNIX by incorporating (1) many of the "system calls" in SVr4; (2) the SVr4 file system; (3) the ELF format; and (4) the Streams communication module. (Id. at 3-4.)

Methinks he needs to looks at the pictures I'm about to show you, and then it's back to the drawing board for one expert.

If you look on the list of files SCO has in Exhibit G, beginning on page 5, look for files beginning with binutils, and you'll see them there. So SCO is claiming ownership of those files.

Now, if you, SCO and Dr. Cargill will all please step this way, let's see what SCO is offering on Note it's an FTP site, and so if you don't wish to download a tarball, don't go there, but what you'll find there is all the listed files. Here is a picture of what you see, if like me, you'd prefer that SCO not collect your IP address and so don't wish to visit personally:

There it is, binutils, top of the list. Do you see any legal notice restricting downloads? Me either. When Ariel first sent me that information, I frankly couldn't believe it. But two other folks sent me the same, confirming that indeed binutils are there available on the site and they are listed with the GPL as the license. I asked them to carefully check to be certain that no legal notice was there, and all three say they saw no notice.

I asked Ariel to briefly please explain what binutils is and what is its relationship to the kernel:

binutils is a user-level set of tools used as a backend to compilers. It includes: ar(1), nm(1), objcopy(1), objdump(1), readelf(1) and the GNU linker (ld).

Essentially, SCO is talking about the kernel, but the _same_ ELF header files are needed in binutils because these utilities need to know how to _generate_ the ELF executables which are later executed by the kernel. The header files are inside the tarball 'binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz' which is at the top of the list. This is essentially a _full_ ELF specification and implementation.

Is there a notice of anything? Well, the tarball includes the GNU standard "COPYING" file which includes the full text of:

Version 2, June 1991

Also, the file is placed under a directory /pub which is the conventional place for "public" stuff, not protected by any password.

Now, ELF hasn't changed, I'm told, for a long time, so these older files, which appear to have been there since 2001, if you notice the date, are likely the same as any newer files. But for sure the methods and concepts are out there, and they have been demonstrably at least since 2001, and the files on this FTP site are clearly available to be used in Linux, because anything that is GPL'd can be used in any GNU/Linux distribution.

Two years ago this very month, Groklaw debunked SCO's ELF claims on other equally devastating to SCO grounds, as well as separately debunking their ABI claims. If you read the ELF story, you will learn that ELF was put in the public domain. It's a standard. And of course there is a major question mark over SCO's claim that it even has any copyrights to sue with. But this last -- that SCO is still distributing ELF and under the GPL -- is truly the cherry on top.

Actually, not only is there no notice not to download, they actually offer and encourage you to get from them a CD with binutils and all the ELF header files on it:

Someone may say that SCO didn't know any better, that the current management has no clue that binutils-2.8.1 includes a full implementation of reading, generating, and manipulating ELF files. In fact, that was SCO's original alibi, back in Exhibit G:

3. All of the following files or lines of code, or files and lines similar thereto, have appeared in major releases of Linux, and have also appeared in SCO's redistributions of Linux. At the time it redistributed Linux, SCO was not aware that its intellectual property had been copied or misappropriated and placed into Linux without SCO's authorization or consent.

Then SCO listed the binutils files, one by one, binutils-2.14/bfd/elf-bfd.h onward. So at least by the time they made up the list, they knew.

Now, it being 2006, there's no mistake here. They are not distributing without realizing what they are releasing is under the GPL. They say so. The GPL is right there in the binutils package in the copying file. I think it speaks to the truthfulness of Exhibit G's claim that SCO never knowingly distributed ELF under the GPL, but even if they were all clueless as a brick, they certainly knew by the time they made up the list. So they can't now say they *still* don't realize they are releasing these files under the GPL. It's not 2004 any more. It's 2006.

Others have now confirmed for me that the binutils download has a GPL COPYING notice and no special notice from SCO (or anyone else) restricting anything and say that it contains (inter alia) header files with all the ELF magic numbers and structures. That means, to me, that SCO can't sue anybody over ELF from this day forward. Period. Game over. We'll see if they agree.

Interestingly if you check the copyrights in the files currently downloadable, you will find those BFD files are not copyrighted to SCO, even if they were not GPL'd. They are copyrighted by the Free Software Foundation. Here's the notice:

/* ELF support for BFD.
Copyright (C) 1991, 92, 93, 95, 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Written by Fred Fish @ Cygnus Support, from information published
in "UNIX System V Release 4, Programmers Guide: ANSI C and
Programming Support Tools".

But they had no right, SCO may exclaim. Too late. If ever they had a complaint, it should have been in 1991, and in any case, having released the files since 2001 -- WITH THAT VERY COPYRIGHT NOTICE -- it's obvious that SCO at the time and all these years since had absolutely no objection. Besides that, the article we did on ELF two years ago told them specifically that binutils included ELF and that it was available from SCO's website back then in 2004, a year after they'd filed their lawsuit. And here it is again, two years later. Can they plead ignorance? I don't think so. Incompetence maybe. Sloth. But how can they claim ignorance?

Is it the end of the ELF claims? It should be, I would think. If it isn't, and SCO doesn't drop this claim, frankly I think the word frivolous is going to be entering the discussion in a courtroom in Utah, as I think it should. If AutoZone ever rises from the dead, it is pertinent there as well.

And what, pray tell, might the moral of this story be? To me, it's that once again the GPL has proven itself to be the MVP of the SCO wars. I hope none of you ever forgets that someone had the foresight many years ago to plan for the SCO's of this world. Richard Stallman was villified, sneered at, mocked and attacked for designing the GPL back then. But look at it now. Look quite seriously at what GPLv2 has accomplished. And when you do, please think about that legal foresight he demonstrated and then extrapolate. Are you quite sure GPLv3 isn't also legal foresight? In any case, while you are all free to reach your own conclusions, there is one unchangeable, undeniable fact. There is some water under the legal bridge now, and it wasn't superior technology that saved Linux from SCO. It was the GPL that played a major role in keeping this GNU/Linux boat afloat in the face of SCO's attack.


SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today. | 494 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Off Topic thread here, please
Authored by: jbeadle on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:05 PM EDT
And clickable links are always appreciated.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Kereckshuns here, please.
Authored by: jbeadle on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:07 PM EDT
So PJ can find 'em quickly.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Great find!!!
Authored by: jbeadle on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:13 PM EDT
This is wonderful stuff, 'specially coming from 3 different sources, and more
especially coming from SCOx's own website!!


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:15 PM EDT
You go girl!

[ Reply to This | # ]

OK, so the Nazgul must know this, too...
Authored by: OmniGeek on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:22 PM EDT
Presumably, IBM's crack legal team (as opposed to SCO's legal-team-on-crack?
Joke, joke...) can use an FTP client, too, (in addition to following GrokLaw
;-), and has carefully documented all this so that when it goes away after SCO
and BSF read the article, there's still proof.

That means that there must be some trace of this proof in IBM's filings
documenting this state of affairs, both for their counterclaims and to rebut
SCO's allegations. Do we see anything comparable to these screenshots, etc, in
the public filings?

I know that one of IBM's counterclaims is GPL violation by SCO, and I recall
that they also cite GPL distribution by SCO as an affirmative defense, but I
don't remember seeing the smoking-gun evidence in the exhibits...

My strength is as the strength of ten men, for I am wired to the eyeballs on

[ Reply to This | # ]

Still There
Authored by: hardcode57 on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:24 PM EDT
I just downloaded it as a souvenir.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Still There - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 04:56 AM EDT
I just checked
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
I found it in the site. It did not show up in the
Get a good look because it will be gone by morning.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT
Here's a lawyer question:

Let's just say, arguendo, that this material wasn't included in the Discovery
materials, and that IBM wanted to add this. Could they?

If it turns out that they can't do so, could they use it as evidence for
distribution under the GPL in the PSJ regarding these files, even if it's not
part of the discovery materials?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Can this still be introduced into the case?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:29 PM EDT
The discovery phase has ended (or is ending?).

As PJ has repeatedly explained to us, you cannot ambush your opponent by
suddenly inserting facts into the case willy-nilly.

So, what ways is there to still get this into the case? Is there a proper

[ Reply to This | # ]

MD5 and tar content excerpt
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:31 PM EDT
787229d600b8bb58fe7e75ea30445e44 binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz
289d5acbe7d72d35f30926f93a328fcc cdialog-0.9a-README.gz
2d98d3177b20d35f1b528ca98444ce07 cdialog-0.9a.tar.gz
8cebcd2d21cab0d86101c716a0fe2404 c-torture-1.45.tar.gz
efcd4d184679634f6a9ace79b8402132 fli2gif.tar.gz
02ae07617946ee87802df29919e328a4 giftrans.tar.gz
b953ddb23091a4ea936b01a1d1a54dbf gnus-5.4.50.tar.gz
b11449234069d05d025a8177a7df6d7c gnus-etc-0.24.tar.gz
92986f940548fe4116428d21b16fd356 ispell-3.1.20.tar.gz
1420c696eeff2678199144e38d0ee0aa mc-4.0.tar.gz
d642d1a407488e6ac75c06a5d37206dd mkisofs-1.11.tar.gz
4cfe23b29218a11f304652659d4dd84f ncurses-1.9.9g.tar.gz
7b3fd52704809498df7b3c65b198693e rx-1.4.tar.gz
1c225767998dce62d26124b008c56c72 sed-2.05.tar.gz
d3419a30d2705b631b51deb9fe57aa65 slang0.99-38.tar.gz
02aaaef350734b942f49c4e9045026c0 ss-970713-970721.diff.gz
73f6adb2d7526d5872311b069619a126 ss-970713.tar.gz
0ef304fd9dfc6ce3a581dbec1df46518 tm-7.106.tar.gz
ec02d00ddcef462268f437efaeca34e0 units-1.53.tar.gz
16b2873c2b0739e07702825df51d7977 xwpe-1.4.2.tgz

drwxrwxrwx ian/cygnus 0 1997-05-26 12:47:31 binutils-2.8.1/
drwxrwxrwx ian/cygnus 0 1997-05-26 12:47:22 binutils-2.8.1/binutils/
-rw-rw-rw- ian/cygnus 26344 1997-05-26 12:42:26
-rw-rw-rw- ian/cygnus 18007 1997-05-26 12:34:47 binutils-2.8.1/COPYING
-rw-rw-rw- ian/cygnus 25265 1997-05-26 12:34:47 binutils-2.8.1/COPYING.LIB

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:33 PM EDT
Blub,,blub,,,,,blub..... isn't that the sound a sinking ship makes? Bye, bye
SCO. We'd like to say it's been nice knowing you but PJ doesn't like liars so
we won't.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Aim Here on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:34 PM EDT
Hah, SCO's hardly going to retract their claims because of a silly little thing like this. I can hear Stowell starting to oscillate furiously already...

<Stowell>Don't be silly! That's source code! SCO copyrighted the ELF method, not the source code to ld! Rochkind proved that source code and methods weren't the same thing! We never showed anyone our precioussssss ELF method, we just gave away a bunch of source code! Just because we gave away source code to everyone doesn't mean ELF isn't a secret!

Besides, we weren't on the TISC and we didn't give everyone the ELF format! Nobody saw us do it! You can't prove it! And anyway, you must have been hacking our website! Stop hacking our website!</Stowell>

[ Reply to This | # ]

Just downloaded binutils
Authored by: desertrat on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:36 PM EDT
from and taken a screenshot of the
index page there.

PJ, if anyone contacts you regarding this, I am willing to swear out an
affidavit to this effect and to provide the downloaded copy and screenshot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is a gift...
Authored by: Latesigner on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:36 PM EDT
This collection of clowns has put Linux and the GPL beyond reach of greed-heads
for the foreseeable future.
I'm not a believer in the "Any thing that doesn't kill you makes you
stronger." school but in this instance it looks like being true.
Linux been really lucky in it's first 'major' opponent.
Eat your heart out Microsoft.

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

PING The Nazgul
Authored by: edal on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:39 PM EDT
Lunch is served, enjoy your meal.

Ed Almos

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:39 PM EDT
I do hope PJ did something good here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

diminishing returns
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Look quite seriously at what GPLv2 has accomplished. And when you
do, please think about that legal foresight he demonstrated and
then extrapolate. Are you quite sure GPLv3 isn't also legal foresight?

there is this thing called the Law of Diminishing Return.
RMS cannot go on producing pure legal magic forever..

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:45 PM EDT
PJ, you have often called a spade a spade, but you are being too gentle here.
There's a time to pour acid on open wounds, and this is one of them.

I can't help but recall what an attorney said to Sen. McCarthy all those years
ago -- only today I'd address it to Darl McBride:

"At long last sir, have you no decency?"

There is no excusing what is being done here. This establishes beyond a doubt
that this case is a blatant attempt, through the courts, to procure financial
gain by attempting to tarnish the reputations and credibility of at least three
major companies and their employees, as well as thousands of volunteers who have
no motivation other than to contribute their talents to the general welfare. In
short, a blackmail attempt. It's not like Darl could claim ignorance, either.
His own consultants (and the preceeding CEO) told him not to pursue this course
of action -- that it was a bad idea with no basis in reality.

Business is business, yes. But, good business is not about callously destroying
lives and reputations just so you can make a buck.

There are no valid reasons for leaving these materials on a website, if SCO
truly believes that their distribution harms their business (which is precisely
what SCO told the court two years ago). And I don't buy the excuse that
"we're just supporting our customers." That doesn't require public
access. And, if SCO is unaware of who its customers are, there's nothing
preventing SCO from providing an email link so that necessary files may be
ordered. SCO -- and its principals -- have flat-out lied to the court, the
public and the press.

This is not just a big hole in SCO's case. It's a gross example of the moral
bankruptcy of SCO's management which brooks no question.

Imjustabigcat, not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

It gets much, much better
Authored by: overshoot on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:47 PM EDT
PJ, you're missing what may well be the best part.

SCOX' products -- every blessed one of them -- are compiled with the same binutils packages. Every one of them is either:

  • An infringing deriviative work of the gcc libraries and binutils, or
  • A distribution under the GPL of those same works.

Choose, Darl. Choose carefully, because thanks to Orrin Hatch the United States Federal Government has been working to criminalize copyright infringement with hard time for hardened criminals -- like you?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:49 PM EDT
Downloaded and takena screenshot for posterity ;-)

Its correct. GPL is there

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: webster on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:53 PM EDT
They don't plan on a trial.

This utterly confounds them. They can't answer questions about this. Clearly
they don't plan to have to answer any questions about this.

If they were serious about a trial, they would have shut down their website and
reconstructed it so as not to expose and distribute their IP jewels.

They will get off cheaper with a default rather than try to defend their
bumbling and ignorance. There are more and worse snafus like this. Just look
at what GL has found and at least double it for what IBM has found. From SCO's
perpective, this case can't be tried.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO, (old and new). Distributed the ELF specification
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 04:58 PM EDT

The ELF specification is a public standard, and was published by both oldSCO, and Caldera (newSCO). This is around 1999 thought 2002.

In 1999, oldSCO's was hosting the ELF specifications publicly, and had explain that it was not up to date. (The ELF specs were not set in stone that long ago, and were improved with contributions and suggestions).The author is Dave Prosser, SCO, Murray Hill, NJ

And the message was posted to a public list belonging to the Linux Standard Base

    * To:
    * Subject: URL for updated gABI
    * From:
    * Date: Mon, 13 Dec 1999 12:24 EST
    * Message-id: 
Old-return-path: dfp


There are
quite possibly a few more minor modifications yet to
come.  They include a means
to handle more than 65K sections
and some form of "comdat".  Both of these are
primarily targeted
at helping C++.

And here the public ELF specifications are being transfered from oldSCO to Caldera's web pages. With Caldera showing enthusiasm at being able to take over ELF documentation from oldSCO

From: Doug Beattie Date: 2001-10-31 02:32:39 David: The materials you are looking for are currently available at the link Christoph has noted below. They will be changing soon however. When they do I will make sure the link to this and other ones from SCO are updated on the LSB specification references page so they can be followed/found. In the future bookmark "" to start drilling down to find the references. Doug Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > On Mon, Oct 29, 2001 at 05:30:50PM -0800, David Mosberger wrote: > > The page at no longer > > exists. Can someone tell me where the System V ABI pages moved to? I > > did a quick search on, but the search engine on that site > > didn't produce anything meaningful. > > > > Christoph > > -- > Of course it doesn't work. We've performed a software upgrade. > > _______________________________________________ > Linux-IA64 mailing list > > -- Douglas B. Beattie

Douglas B. Beattie was Test Architect - Caldera, Inc

Christoph Hellwig worked for Caldera in Germany (

[ Reply to This | # ]

is it possible to claim they didn't know it was there?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:06 PM EDT
Can they say, well we didn't know it was out there? We promplty resolved the
issue once we found out about it. Seems like this is their most likely way out
of the mess.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Santa Cruz Operation, not just SCOG.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:07 PM EDT
Skunkware was from the original Santa Cruz Operation, so The SCO Group cannot
justify the " we did not know" argument. This was distributed under
the GPL by the SCO Group's predecessor in interest in the UNIX contracts, and
not merely by Caldera.

Furthermore, the release of GCC and Binutils by Santa Cruz was in fact essential
to their business model, as these were the tools used to create the application
programs that ran on SCO UNIX.

To verify this, someone should check an original Skunkware CD from before the

Arch_dude (not logged in.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: eggplant37 on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:10 PM EDT
[eggplant@localhost ~]$ date
Mon Jul 31 17:06:30 EDT 2006
[eggplant@localhost ~]$ ncftpget
binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz: 4.90 MB 541.82 kB/s
[eggplant@localhost ~]$ ll binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz
-rw-rw-r-- 1 rrclark rrclark 5139402 Jun 2 2001 binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz
[eggplant@localhost ~]$ date
Mon Jul 31 17:06:47 EDT 2006

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: tpassin on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:13 PM EDT
I just went to the SCO Skunkworks site, out of curiosity, and here is question
and answer from their FAQ -

"Can I give SCO Skunkware away for free?

Yes. If you are running a training center or would otherwise like to
redistribute SCO Skunkware for free, please contact us at and
indicate how many copies you would like. There may be a charge for bulk orders
to cover the cost of media, shipping and handling."

So there it is, plenty loud and clear, no need to infer anything from an
apparent lack of notice.

Tom Passin

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO are still distributing ELF specification
Authored by: Chris Lingard on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:16 PM EDT

SCO are still publishing the full specification for ELF, the page will probably disappear soon.

This specification was published both by old SCO, and was taken over by Caldera. They have improved it over the years, with contributions from others, and have also acknowledged that it also belongs on Linux Standard Base

This is the System V Application Binary Interface - DRAFT - 17 December 2003, it will disappear shortly, as it has the full specification for ELF

[ Reply to This | # ]

Here is my log in
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:26 PM EDT
I had to log in using the name anonymous and my full email as a password.
Here is the notice I got after logging in.
Dennis H

User ( anonymous
331 Anonymous login ok, send your complete email address as your password.
230- Welcome to the SCO FTP Server

This site hosts SCO Skunkware packages.

** Please read the following export notice **
Please note that the electronic transfer of this data to a destination
outside of the United States constitutes an export (as defined by the
U.S. Bureau of Export Administration) and is authorized ONLY to the end
user. Any subsequent re-exportation of this data requires that the end
user obtain an additional export license. Also note that it is illegal
to re-route Caldera product to Cuba, Iran, Iraq, Libya, North Korea,
Sudan or Syria and that you must file a special license if you intend
to re-route goods to the embargoed regions of Serbia or the Taliban
controlled areas of Afghanistan. Placement of this order constitutes
an agreement to comply with these stipulations.
230 Anonymous access granted, restrictions apply.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Mmmm.... Delicious!
Authored by: MplsBrian on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:34 PM EDT
So SCO is apparently claiming rights, if not outright ownership, to software
they (and their predecessors in interest) have been distributing under the GPL
for years, that is actually copyright by the Free Software Foundation, written
based on a published standard? Does irony get more delicious than this? (May I
presume that the reference is already included in the unix doc project?)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Yep. It's still there....
Authored by: darkonc on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:42 PM EDT
787229d600b8bb58fe7e75ea30445e44 binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz

outlook@outlook10:~$ ncftpls -l
-rwxrwxr-x 1 ftp ftp 5139402 Jun 2 2001 binutils-2.8.1.tar.gz
-rwxrwxr-x 1 ftp ftp 117258 Jun 2 2001 c-torture-1.45.tar.gz


Should we start a lottery as to when they take it down?

Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each person and
bringing it to life..

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet or not, but it might be worth your effort to look at this site as well. It has the listing on this page as well as offering a link to the source code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:45 PM EDT
Starting from WWW.SCO.COM, I simply took a few of their links to reach the
following Skunkworks files. There was no obvious restrictions to prevent anyone
from following the path. It indicates that as early as 1999, and maybe 1996, SCO
knew that the ELF format was being used by the GCC. The file which describes
this information is at:

"The GNU C Compiler (gcc) is an advanced optimizing compiler for C, C++ and
Objective C. On OpenServer, this version of gcc can generate both COFF and ELF
binaries from within a single compiler. Use the -melf flag to turn on ELF mode.
By default, the compiler is always in COFF mode. On UnixWare, gcc always
generates ELF binaries."

"Last Updated: Sunday Feb 21, 1999 at 22:03:46 PST"

[ Reply to This | # ]

IP address recording
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:52 PM EDT
Hi, This really isn't important, but would be interesting to know. SCO records
IP address's of visitors. I am sure it couldn't get a lot of details about the
individual. Mainly just show which ISP or Company visited the site. My
question is does groklaw do it? I think it would be interesting if any anonymous
posts come from SCO's ip address or how often they visit.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Steve Martin on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 05:57 PM EDT

I asked them to carefully check to be certain that no legal notice was there, and all three say they saw no notice.

There indeed is none. I was there a couple of days ago. It's a straight FTP site, freely open to all, and they're distributing binutils.

"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports Night"

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: jws on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:01 PM EDT

If I recall, the contents of the Skunkworks cd is much like the Sun free software which has been maintained separately for the Sun platforms by Steven Christiansen at for at least 14 years.

I believe that originally the GNU packages were included by third part users, and were compiled by them, and that the distribution was put together and released by SCO because no SCO distributor had enough resources to make up and ship the CD's.

I hate to see this mess get to where SCO cannot distribute this CD w/o legally because only the users that have installed SCO and are attempting to use the software with the better GNU tools will be hurt.

I believe there is a question how the ELF specification relates to the kernel. I would argue that the kernel is not reading and using the elf but rather the exec functions in the runtime library is. At least at one time when I worked on the kernel the kernel did not read files as a rule, but would have had the data read from the executable and copied or mapped into the arising processes or to be exec'ed processes memory space, and the elf information would be gone before any kernel time would have been burned up looking at the file.

The ELF spec details how executable files are stored to allow them to be executed. But between there they have to have linking and so forth done, and once that is done, the kernel will get involved as a process thread is allocated to start running the process.

So I would be open to how much of ELF really does relate to the kernel. Most of what is there relates to how addresses are represented, and what tables should look like, etc, but all of that is not strictly part of the kernel, but really is part of the runtime library.

I have attached a small program with output to illustrate.

The information that is useful are the system calls involving execve

The first one, is shown as the false side of a fork which the shell does when it executes our sample program, and is the first function "executed" by our process in the course of running from the shell.

The program contains a C system function which runs a simple command "id" and then terminates.

all of the information and system calls that are shown here are executed by the virtual program in system support library code, and not in the kernel. when you see a system call, such as execve(...) it goes into the kernel, and the return code is shown.

you will note that the actual reading of the ELF is visible in this, as are calls to map the file executable text into the space where the "id" command will execute.

My point with all this technical crap is that the argument that sco makes over ELF is either wrong to include IBM, or they should have included all users of the copyright, such as the GNU compiler writers, and the writers of the libraries. The binutils are consumers and users of the copy righted ELF information as well, and have to respect or be granted the rights to know what is in an ELF file.

Why, if the authors of the binutils properly used the ELF spec, would it not be proper for SCO to in turn include the GNU programs which are using copyrights they assert they own.


to execute this:

strace -f ./fork

to compile this:

gcc -o fork fork.c


#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
main(int argc, char *argv[])
system &lp; "id" &rp;
fork strace output

execve("./fork", ["./fork"], [/* 51 vars */]) = 0
uname({sys="Linux", node="fastserver", ...}) = 0
brk(0) = 0x804a000
access("/etc/", R_OK) = -1 ENOENT (No such file or directory)
-1, 0) = 0xb7feb000
open("/etc/", O_RDONLY) = 3
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0644, st_size=73669, ...}) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 73669, PROT_READ, MAP_PRIVATE, 3, 0) = 0xb7fd9000
close(3) = 0
open("/lib/tls/", O_RDONLY) = 3
read(3, "177ELF111331
000O100"..., 512) = 512
fstat64(3, {st_mode=S_IFREG|0755, st_size=1209384, ...}) = 0
3, 0) = 0xb7eaf000
mprotect(0xb7fd2000, 27804, PROT_NONE) = 0
old_mmap(0xb7fd3000, 16384, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE,
MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_FIXED|MAP_DENYWRITE, 3, 0x123000) = 0xb7fd3000
-1, 0) = 0xb7fd7000
close(3) = 0
old_mmap(NULL, 4096, PROT_READ|PROT_WRITE, MAP_PRIVATE|MAP_ANONYMOUS, -1, 0) = 0xb7eae000
mprotect(0xb7fd3000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
mprotect(0xb8000000, 4096, PROT_READ) = 0
set_thread_area({entry_number:-1 -> 6, base_addr:0xb7eae6c0,
limit:1048575, seg_32bit:1, contents:0, read_exec_only:0, limit_in_pages:1,
seg_not_present:0, useable:1}) = 0
munmap(0xb7fd9000, 73669) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGINT, {SIG_IGN}, {SIG_DFL}, 8) = 0
rt_sigaction(SIGQUIT, {SIG_IGN}, {SIG_DFL}, 8) = 0
rt_sigprocmask(SIG_BLOCK, [CHLD], [], 8) = 0
clone(Process 4430 attached
child_tidptr=0xb7eae708) = 4430
[pid 4429] waitpid(4430, Process 4429 suspended
<unfinished ...>
[pid 4430] rt_sigaction(SIGINT, {SIG_DFL}, NULL, 8) = 0
[pid 4430] rt_sigaction(SIGQUIT, {SIG_DFL}, NULL, 8) = 0
[pid 4430] rt_sigprocmask(SIG_SETMASK, [], NULL, 8) = 0
[pid 4430] execve("/bin/sh", ["sh", "-c", "id"], [/* 51 vars */]) = 0
[pid 4430] uname({sys="Linux", node="fastserver", ...}) = 0
[pid 4430] brk(0) = 0x80ee000

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's GPL got to do with it?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:03 PM EDT
"And what, pray tell, might the moral of this story be? To me, it's that once again the GPL has proven itself to be the MVP of the SCO wars."

So imagine a scenario where everything is the same except the GPL is not in the "COPYRIGHT" file. Does it make any difference? I would say no.

SCO claims ELF is a secret they have never let out or licensed to anyone, which IBM has illegally passed on to Linux. Yet SCO has been distributing the same in their public freebees from 1991 to the present day, and with an apparently valid copyright notice that is not their own.

Even with no GPL, their case for ELF has still had a hole blown in it roughly the size of Lindon.


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:06 PM EDT
Other directories in their Skunkworks show the same thing. I used the following
process to get to the SCO files:
Click on Support on the top menu bar
In the Self-Help section, click on Support Download
In the section on SCO's Skunkware and Open Source section, click on
From there, use the standard process of going up and down directories to check
things out

I downloaded the following file:

The file date of the tar file is 6/2/2001
The internal file dates were 5/26/1997
The copyright information is the same as others have indicated

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should PJ rethink the Titanic artwork?
Authored by: dromasco on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:11 PM EDT
Seems to me the Hindenburg might be a better analogy: a large framework,
supported by gas, that disappears in a sudden burst of smoke and flames (and
left a lasting impression that this means of activity was A Real Bad Idea).
Just my USD $.02 worth.... PJ, you ROCK!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Ideal material for Admissions - But nothing new
Authored by: webster on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:18 PM EDT

Certainly SCO has had to admit their distribution of all code in question
throught their and their predecessors-in-interest Linux versions.

They have also had to admit that all this code was distributed under the GPL
License. This disclosure today may cause them to update their answers due to
the dates.

Their problems are the same as always - disavowing the GPL; establishing their
exclusive right; to any specific code; or worse yet, methods and concepts.

It's a FUD case only. In court it is impossibly awkward and frivolous.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Wow! Have a look at this
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:22 PM EDT
I thought that this part of the SCO/Caldera site was just an isolated piece of abandonware. But look at this, just look at that date for index.html - someone at SCO is still patiently updating this site!

The skunkware .iso can be downloaded from here.

Notice the friendly attitude shown throughout this part of the site. I am sure you are free to download this stuff, some is intended for use with SCO Unix products but some is for Caldera Open Linux which many people must have a copy of - I have a CD here.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Selective Memory
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:22 PM EDT
"At the time it redistributed Linux, SCO was not aware that its
intellectual property had been copied or misappropriated and placed into Linux
without SCO's authorization or consent."

But SCO was quick to recall its ownership of Unix, going all the back to when
SCO was AT&T.


Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Your honor, it was just a mistake....
Authored by: Jude on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 06:46 PM EDT
... A simple oversight. We're not perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. Our
mistakes are inconsequential. Mistakes are only worth $5 billion when other
people make them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Welcome To Dante's. What Level, Please?
Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 07:24 PM EDT
Hey, everybody!

(I was originally going to title this thread, "At long last, Senator, have
you no sense of decency?", but saw someone else has already used the quote
in a message. So this is my Plan B.)

I notice a lot of snarfling at the screenshots and all. A lot of people find
this amusing.

I'm not amused. I'm angry. Every time I think SCO can't sink any lower, they
do. And what makes me angrier is the whole "elephant in the room"
thing. Forbes and others are constantly pointing to SCO, how they need to hang
in there, and how the FOSS movement is unworkable. And they do this by excusing
egregious behavior that should have every person with a remote sense of what is
good and just redlining in anger.

This whole lawsuit isn't about killing Linux and Open Source. It never was. It
was about a group of businesses who have created a business model that turns
people into an endless spigot of cash (upgrades, new hardware, new features,
etc.) trying to protect their racket. It's not just about freedom to choose.
It's about freedom not to be used.

SCO is toast. There's no doubt about that. But I want Forbes laughed out of
legitimate reporting. I want MicroSoft to collapse under the weight of its
efforts to control consumers. I want people like DiDio to work 3rd shift at
Dunkin' Donuts for the rest of their lives.

And as long as I'm wishing, I'd like to see Linus Torvalds, Richard Stallman,
and PJ made into patron saints.

All those in favor?

Dobre utka,
The Blue Sky Ranger

[ Reply to This | # ]

Watch out, PJ!
Authored by: Khym Chanur on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 07:42 PM EDT
SCO might accuse you of hacking into their FTP servers! Because... um... you entered "anonymous" and your email adress. That's, like, super-secret hax0r knowledge right there that can get you thrown into jail.

Give a man a match, and he'll be warm for a minute, but set him on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Paraphrased from Terry Pratchett)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Slander of Title?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 08:05 PM EDT
SCO has now purported in open court to own the ELF binaries.

SCO has demonstrably in the past and up to the present day continued to
distribute the ELF binaries.

In so distributing, SCO explicity contains a notice claiming the author is Fred
Fish @ Cygnus software.

Would Mr. Fish not have an EXCELLENT Slander of Title claim against SCO at this

[ Reply to This | # ]

BSF Lawyers will change tack again.
Authored by: kawabago on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 08:21 PM EDT
Since their legal strategy seems to be beating into the wind against the current
in a rocky channel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX System V Release 4, Programmers Guide
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 08:22 PM EDT
/* ELF support for BFD.
Copyright (C) 1991, 92, 93, 95, 1997 Free Software Foundation, Inc.

Written by Fred Fish @ Cygnus Support, from information published in
"UNIX System V Release 4, Programmers Guide: ANSI C and Programming Support

- Is "UNIX System V Release 4, Programmers Guide: ANSI C and Programming
Support Tools" a book or a manual ?
- Does it contains code ? Or does it expose "methods and concepts" ?
- When was it published ?
- What is its Copyright notice ?


[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 08:57 PM EDT
It's interesting to note that the author is Fred Fish. That name is probably distinct enough that there aren't two of them that are techies. Fred Fish was famous for the "Fish disks" that he distributed for the Amiga platform in the late '80s. Fish Fred is still around, and ported gcc to the Amiga platform... How about these old comments:
Thu Nov 14 19:17:03 1991 Fred Fish (fnf at
* elf-common.h: Add defines to support ELF symbol table code.
Mon Nov 11 19:01:06 1991 Fred Fish (fnf at
* elf-internal.h, elf-external.h, elf-common.h: Add support for note sections, which are used in ELF core files to hold copies of various /proc structures. c2001/gcc-934.3/include/ChangeLog

I don't know if this means much, but we're going back a few years...


[ Reply to This | # ]

But the best part isn't in BinUtils itself!
Authored by: brendthess on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 09:10 PM EDT
I took a quick look over the information available there, and found this wonderful piece of documentation: nkware/RELEASE.NOTES

Yes, SCO's (In this case, Santa Cruz Operation's) Release notes for the Skunkware package. Ans what is in there, but this paragraph (from the section Known Limitations):

- If you use g++ to link an ELF binary, libg++ and libstdc++ will be linked in automatically, regardless of whether they are actually used by your program. Such binaries will not run on machines that do not have the libg++ and libstdc++ shared libraries installed. If you know your program does not need these libraries, you can link it using gcc and they will not be included. In programs that do use libg++ or libstdc++, you can maintain portability by using the "-static" flag which makes a statically-linked binary.
Yes, you see it correctly, SCO actually *gave advice* about linking ELF binaries. It becomes obvious that SCO (Original) knew about ELF in GPL'd products long before SCO(New) took over. I think that this shuts down any vague hope that SCO had of making a big issue over ELF.

I am not even vaguely trained as a lawyer. Why are you listening to me?

[ Reply to This | # ]

I Don't Get It!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 10:28 PM EDT
SCO has consistently maintained that the GPL is invalid for various reasons,
including that it is used to redistribute their (arguably) protected
intellectual property.

So why can't SCO distribute their own (again, arguably) intellectual property,
under whatever terms they choose, header info (placed there by supposed
miscreants) notwithstanding?

Seems to me that it still needs to be proven that the GPL is a valid license,
and that the (arguably) misappropriated intellectual property is not SCO's to
begin with.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 31 2006 @ 10:54 PM EDT
For what it is worth, as of 20:47 EDT, the ftp site is still there and files are
still downloadable without any notice. If SCO is reading this site, they are not
doing so as closely as I would be in their shoes.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 03:23 AM EDT
just a though, do any of the files contain pgp style signatures? (as opposed to

md5 ones that have no keys) keys are generaly only used for a period of time,
and it'd be interesting to see if anything is validated with a post lawsuit key

combo, implying that they must be relatively recent, and that sco has been
actively mantaining these files.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 04:04 AM EDT
Also, take a look at...


These describe the various licenses used by skunkware components.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 04:59 AM EDT
And so the race begins, will it be IBM's lawyers or SCO's lawyers that read this

Fempisces not logged in.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Header files copyrightable?
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 06:01 AM EDT
Can header files be copyrightable (US jurisdiction).

Header files describe nothing more than the api of the code in a specific
Wouldn't that mean that that you can copyright an API?
And is that allowed?

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO is Distributing ELF Under the GPL Still. Yes. Now. Today.
Authored by: seantellis on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 06:13 AM EDT
I thought that they might try the old "but it was in a URL that wasn't
obvious and therefore should be taken as secret" argument, so I've just
done an experiment to defuse it.

I have verified that it is possible to start at the "pub" folder,
which, as PJ points out, is the traditional place for placing things that have
public access:

...and then drill down with a standard web browser to the offending files. At no
point was any warning, restriction, or other message offered.

Sean Ellis (

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Caldera Open Access License
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 07:02 AM EDT
This was saved as text from HTML, so please excuse the extra characters and
slight formatting problems. If you want to see the original, it's still up on
SCO's website, for the time being:

- - - - - - - - - -


Open Source Community, Users to Benefit from Access to UNIX Intellectual

FORUM 2001, SANTA CRUZ, CA—August 20, 2001— Caldera International, Inc.
(Nasdaq: CALD) today announced it will Open Source the AIM performance
benchmarks and the UNIX Regular Expression Parser, along with two UNIX
utilities awk and grep. These technologies will be released under the
GPL (Gnu General Public License). In a related move, Caldera will also
be making the Open UNIX 8 source code available to members of its
developer program who request it. Information about the Caldera
developer network is available at

These announcements reflect the continued intention on the part of
Caldera to progressively contribute source code and to provide ongoing
support to the Open Source community. Caldera expects to release further
components of the UNIX intellectual property in coming months.

The AIM performance benchmarks are industry-standard server benchmarks
acquired from the former AIM Technology. By Open Sourcing the
benchmarks, companies may use them to establish independent validation
of internal benchmarking. For example, Caldera can independently
establish scalability and stability comparisons between Open UNIX 8 and
other platforms. Although the sources will be released under the GPL,
the use of the AIM Benchmark trademark in connection with these programs
will be restricted based on published guidelines to assure the integrity
of these tests as industry standard references.

The UNIX Regular Expression Parser is a library function from Open UNIX
8 used by a number of standard UNIX utilities for complex pattern
matching of pieces of text. By Open Sourcing this, along with the awk
and grep utilities, Caldera begins a process of making some of the
original UNIX utilities, upon which the GNU/Linux system was modeled,
available as reference sources. This gives the Open Source community an
opportunity to reference these implementations and incorporate the best
of both source streams into future GPL implementations of these tools.

“Many in the Open Source community have asked Caldera to GPL these
technologies,” said John Terpstra, vice president of technology for
Caldera International. “We have now delivered these utilities and
benchmarks. We have chosen the GPL license to directly support
corresponding GNU projects.”

The Regular Expression library and tools will be made publicly available
on SourceForge this week at In coming
months, Caldera will Open Source other UNIX tools and utilities,
including pkgmk, pkgadd, pkgrm, pkginfo, pkgproto and more, as well as
the Bourne shell, lex, yacc, sed, m4 and make. The licenses under which
these technologies will be Open Sourced will be decided based on
community and business needs.

“We are very pleased to offer much of the UNIX source code that laid the
foundation for the whole GNU/Linux movement,” said Ransom Love, CEO of
Caldera International. “In each case, we will apply the right license –
GPL, Berkeley, Mozilla, Open Access, or other license – as appropriate
to our business goals.

“Our intention is to steer the middle course in the public debate – it’s
not a case of free or Open Source versus proprietary, but both, as the
situation warrants. We believe the industry is evolving to a model where
source code is freely available, innovation is nurtured at the grass
roots, and businesses, such as Caldera, can add value as both product
and service companies.” Open Access to Open UNIX 8

The Caldera Open Access license is intended to give customers the
ability to both reference and modify the source code. However, the
initial release of source code will be read only, giving customers and
software developers a significant reference as they develop applications
for Open UNIX 8. In the future, customers and developers will be allowed
to change the source code as long as they return the changes to Caldera.
This will allow Caldera to maintain a standard business quality platform.

Open UNIX incorporates some proprietary third party technology which
means source code for certain third party modules will not be available
due to licensing restrictions.

“Over time the licensing and delivery of our Open Access sources will
evolve and improve,” explained John Harker, vice president of product
management. “Our immediate goal was to provide basic source reference
access following the model of SCO’s source products by simply
eliminating the license fee. We’re looking at ways to make this as
streamlined as possible.”

The Open Access license is free, but will require a signed license
agreement. Delivery of the sources in CD form will require a nominal
media payment. Further details will be available when the sources are
released in October of this year.

*Open Source*

From its inception, Caldera has shared technology with the Open Source
community. Technologies that have been Open Sourced include Webmin – a
Web-based administration tool, LIZARD – the award-winning Linux
Installation Wizard, Linux Unattended Installation (LUI), Linux
Installation Administration (LISA) and Caldera Open Administration
System (COAS). Please visit to download Caldera’s
technologies that have been open-sourced.

*Caldera International, Inc.*

Caldera International (Nasdaq: CALD) is the leader in “Unifying UNIX
with Linux for Business.” Based in Orem, UT, Caldera has representation
in 82 countries and has 15,000+ resellers worldwide. For more
information on Caldera products and services, visit

Caldera, OpenLinux, UnixWare, Open UNIX, Caldera Volution and “Unifying
UNIX with Linux for Business” are trademarks or registered trademarks of
Caldera International, Inc. All other products, services, companies,
events and publications are trademarks, registered trademarks or
servicemarks of their respective owners in the U.S. and/or other
countries. LINUX is a registered trademark of Linus Torvalds. UNIX is a
registered trademark of The Open Group in the United States and other

*Forward Looking Statements *

The statements set forth above include forward-looking statements that
involve risks and uncertainties. The Company wishes to advise readers
that a number of important factors could cause actual results to differ
materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Those factors
include the failure of the products described above to operate as
designed due to incompatibility with some platforms or other defects;
our reliance on developers in the open source community; new and
changing technologies and customer acceptance of those technologies; the
Company's ability to compete effectively with other companies; failure
of our brand to achieve the broad recognition necessary to succeed;
unenforceability of the GNU general public license and other open source
licenses; our reliance on third party developers of components of our
software offerings; claims of infringement of third-party intellectual
property rights; and disruption in the Company's distribution sales
channel. These and other factors, which could cause actual results to
differ materially, are also discussed in the Company's filings with the
Securities and Exchange Commission, including its recent filings on Form

- - - - - - - - - -

Does anyone know what happened to the Open Access License?

Or, given that it was free as in beer, the nature of what one had to sign?

Did anyone sign up?

Was the Open UNIX 8 source code actually made available for "Open

Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.

[ Reply to This | # ]

and about Dr. Thomas Cargill
Authored by: tangomike on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 02:24 PM EDT
It's human nature that when you catch someone in a substantial falsehood, you
tend to question everything else they say.

Seems to me if the quote about Dr. Cargill's opinions in the article is true,
then Dr. Cargill's opinions + $1.25 will get Darl and his rustlers a cup of
coffee. In other words he's demonstrated that his "applicable legal
test" is worth squat, as far as ELF goes, so the rest of his opinions will
need to be questioned or ignored.

Leaves me wondering why these people seem to have left their brains in their
other suits (pun intended).

Before someone reminds me that he's a hired expert with a specific job, I'll
just add this: Mr. Rochkind argued that source code isn't necessary for Methods
and Concepts. I agree with him. TSCOG are still wrong because of the judge's
orders, but Rochkind's argument was correct. Dr. Cargill's argument, on the
other hand, is demonstrably wrong about ELF, or his applicable legal test is
from the planet Weebo. Since he apparently is from Earth, his integrity just
went down the sewer.

Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Authored by: bigbert on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 05:51 PM EDT
Linux Extortion Racket: $699
IBM Litigation costs: $30 million
AGAIN being caught out by PJ telling lies: priceless!


[ Reply to This | # ]

Available even from China
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 09:06 PM EDT
If it matters, I'll confirm what people said, even from China and behind the
"great wall" (firewall), etc and even living 12 hours in the
"future" (it's tomorrow here now).

The files are all still available with no restrictions, and reading the GPL and
export restrictions there is nothing for China or any part of asia at all.

the skunkworks cd is available too, and the contents are the same (as per

interesting though is SCO is distributing other works - current (or reasonably
current) stuff, which a lot of it has the GPL all over it too.

others have already mentioned the usage of GCC to make their own stuff - using
GCC doesnt make your product GPL. But if you make it and put the GPL notice on
it, well then yer kinda scuppered, and that's what SCO does a lot of times.

I remember a while back SCO was posting that the GPL was evil and they don't use
it, they hate it, etc, well if that's the case, why are they still using GCC and
other libraries?

I'd love to see the core developers of GCC/libraries tell SCO to stop using
their product. I mean, being predatory should automatically mean you have to
stop using the product your against, shouldn't it??

But that would require SCO rub more than two available brain-cells together,
something they just can't seem to do...

[ Reply to This | # ]

binutils tarball gone - eaten by CookieMonster?
Authored by: Wesley_Parish on Tuesday, August 01 2006 @ 11:51 PM EDT

SCO has been reading Groklaw again. binutils is no longer available at that ftp site.

When all has been said and done, Societe Commercial du Ondit will have provided us with much amusement. Bolting the stable door is usually done by the security-conscious, before, not after, the horse gets loose.

We really should make sure that Darl gets into popular culture as the fool of fools, who robbed himself blind.

finagement: The Vampire's veins and Pacific torturers stretching back through his own season. Well, cutting like a child on one of these states of view, I duck

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, it's in their own FAQ...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 03:06 AM EDT
Excerpt from the Skunkware FAQ on SCO's own website:
Can I charge money for SCO Skunkware? It is permitted to give away (for no charge) the Skunkware CD, but resale of the CD is not permitted. However, the components of the CD are only subject to their original licenses (in many cases the GNU General Public License). Any components of the Skunkware distribution which are licensed under the GNU Public License (GPL), including any modifications made by Caldera, may be copied, modified, and/or distributed (for any price), according to the terms of the GPL. SCO Skunkware is a trademark of Caldera International, Inc. and the aggregate CD as a whole may not be resold. Further, some of the SCO Skunkware components are restricted by copyright which prevents their sale or inclusion in a commercial product. See the individual COPYING, LICENSE or README files for a component for specifics with regard to licensing and redistribution of that component.
Greetings from Belgium.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Gone, but not forgotten...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 04:24 PM EDT
Although SCO has removed the following file...

...they still haven't changed their "contents" files to removed the
file listing:

Those guys should really be more thorough when they remove a file.

[ Reply to This | # ]

SCO collects my IP address
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:43 PM EDT
Why would I, or anyone, care if SCO, or anyone, collects my IP address? I visit
tons of web sites, and I expect that many if not all of them have server logs
that record the IP address of all visitors. Forgive me if this question has been
asked before.

[ Reply to This | # ]

What's the BFD?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, August 02 2006 @ 09:51 PM EDT
I understand BFD, but I don't understand the BFD about this [see the
History node of the BFD doc or Tiemann's more explicit account in the
Open Sources book].

The Skunkware distribution and all the stuff about ELF must be
well-known, at least amongst hackers who've worked in that area even
if it wasn't easily found with a web search. Why the hubris over that
when there are stronger pointers to SCOG's knowledge of ELF support in
the GNU toolchain (if that really matters) as posted here before?
Surely IBM know all this stuff and more if we do.

Skunkware is advertised as unsupported, but SCO advertise _support_
for the GNU tool chain on OpenServer, which must mean dealing with ELF
features <URL:>.
It appears to have been dropped in OS 6, though they still refer you
to g77 as the Fortran compiler and the OS 6 doc includes binutils, e.g.
(which shows that doc isn't up yo the usual GNU standard).

Then note development work on parts of the tool chain (GCC, binutils,
GDB &c). The GCC maintainer for Unixware and OpenServer, with commit
access to the repository, apparently still works for SCOG. His posts
from there during working hours suggests the work is official, though
it may not be. (I actually thought he'd done more over the years than
what the ChangeLogs show.) Of course, the reason you wouldn't expect
to find SCO copyright notices in the source is that the tool chain is
GNU software and the FSF has various Santa Cruz Operation and Caldera
copyright assignments and disclaimers on file for it. Disclaimers
suggest that work may have been done in the employee's time, but both
have more recent blanket copyright assignments for contributions
to binutils &c.

By the way, it's not true that ELF hasn't changed in a long time
<URL:>. Also the base ELF
needs processor-specific supplements which are introduced
occasionally, such as the _IBM/SunSoft-copyright_ one on the SCO site
on which bfd/elf32-ppc.c is based. (Changes in ELF -- or at least
what the tools generate -- have made the unexec mechanism with which
Emacs process its own binary probably the biggest maintenance headache
in Emacs.)

Ob-legal: The ARM ABI, including the complete ELF document,
<URL:> is governed by
English law, which might be more of a challenge to sue under.

Not directly related to binutils, but note that (old SCO's) lxrun from
skunkware implements a loader for Linux ELF binaries under a
permissive free licence along with an elf.h lacking a copyright header
which doubtless demonstrates literal copying from it into (an old?)

Dave Love.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Now the binutils disappered
Authored by: tliebscher on Wednesday, August 09 2006 @ 07:54 PM EDT
Interesting is that the file somehow disappeared from the FTP site (10-Aug-2006
00:45GMT) but I guess SCO either only reads here or there some articles and
tries to clean what ever could be bad for them not only at first sight. A bit
stupid in my point of view is if you leave the index of the FTP site still
intact showing the alleged "not existing" file still in the index.
The file (10-Aug-2006 00:43)
at least still shows the BINUTILS where it was as writing the article.


[ 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 )