|
|
| SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada |
 |
|
Friday, August 11 2006 @ 11:45 AM EDT
|
We've been busy in the last week or two demonstrating that SCO is still distributing items it is suing over, like ELF and binutils. Why so modest a scope? SCO is still, three plus years after suing IBM, distributing the entire Linux kernel under the GPL right here: ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/pub/skunkware/contrib-3.1.1-10-20011130.iso
This is like reporting on the Keystone Kops. I guess we can now call SCO the KeySCO Kops.
Here's what our informant tells us:
This is the ISO image that contains Linux kernel source and binary RPMs under
EXTRA/RPMS and EXTRA/SRPMS. The current disk image is dated April 1, 2004;
the difference from the previous version is the removal of nmap (after
Fyodor's request that SCO not distribute nmap any more).
The ftp.iso.caldera.com site doesn't have any of the "Legal Notice" files
that have been strewn about in some other places. The "freely distributed"
is inside the ISO, in the file README (also attached here). The relevant
snippet is
"This CD is freely distributed. An ISO image is freely downloadable from
http://www.caldera.com/support/contrib/ and it is freely included in media
kits. The owners of some components do not permit commercial resale, so you
cannot charge for copying those components, and therefore you cannot sell
or resell this CD. However, most components, including all components
licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL), do not prohibit you
from copying, modifying and/or reselling those components, for any price
you want. See the individual COPYING, LICENSE or README files for a component
for specifics with regard to licensing and redistribution of that component."
Of course, the Linux packages come with the GPL, but this snippet mainly just
shows that this CD is not restricted to existing customers, and was not
intended to be so restricted. It's "freely distributed," "freely
downloadable," "freely included in media kits."
So the date, April of 2004 and the change, removing nmap, shows that SCO knows what is in here and it still distributed it long after it sued IBM.
All that is missing is a little running around madly music.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: MplsBrian on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
So, correct me if I'm wrong, but if they cease distribution now, are they not in
violation of the GPL? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Oh, what a tangled web we weave (n/t) - Authored by: Nivuahc on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:09 PM EDT
- SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: kanegs on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: Christian on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:11 PM EDT
- SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: yarzer on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:35 PM EDT
- Nobody is this stupid. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:49 PM EDT
- SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: Aim Here on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 05:41 PM EDT
- SCO is Still Distibuting the Linux Kernel. Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: GriffMG on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 08:12 PM EDT
- Yup. The Whole Enchilada - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 11:30 PM EDT
- Chutzpah - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 10:06 AM EDT
- Zero Retention - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 02:06 PM EDT
- So when do things start moving again? - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, August 14 2006 @ 05:13 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:01 PM EDT |
| Please make your links clickable... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
While we wait for it to be removed.
Perhaps we can start a elaspsed time clock from the first publication here to
its final disappearance.
---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.
"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
| Has a little better ring to it. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:02 PM EDT |
Do they still have a court case based on this evidence ? Surely they cant sue
others whilst commiting the sins themselves ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Samari711 on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:08 PM EDT |
I believe the song you're thinking of is probably Yakety
Sax ---
IANAL
IAASEWTHKS (I Am A Systems Engineer Who Thinks He Knows Something) [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Cue the Music - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:24 PM EDT
| |
| Authored by: gakulev on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:22 PM EDT |
I do not want to download an entire ISO, but would be interested in the kernel
version it contains.
---
Gakulev
May the source be with you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: entre on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:29 PM EDT |
Volume 500 Shares 08-11-06 12:30 PM
Any wonder?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 12:36 PM EDT |
They didn't <i>place</i> it under the GPL, they just
<i>found</i> it there, and so, if Chewbacca lives on Endor, you must
convict.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:11 PM EDT |
We don't care. It doesn't matter. We keep it there for amusement. The case is
never going to trial. Let the lawyer's scream. Let darl and ralph scream.
It's the way we've always done business. Why wreck our website just to avoid
further embarassment. It doesn't matter. Once you distribute under the GPL,
the cat is out of the bag. It is a complete defense to any claim. So it was
years ago, so it is today and so it will be tomorrow for old SCO, new SCO and
future SCO if any.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:21 PM EDT |
For the record...
The current disk image is dated April 1,
2004; the difference from the previous version is the removal of nmap (after
Fyodor's request that SCO not distribute nmap any more).
This
is incorrect. Fyodor
revoked their license based on SCO GPL violations.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:22 PM EDT |
SCO have numerous statements about distributing Linux, not distributing Linux.
For example, in response to IBM's PSJ motion on Counterclaim 6, SCO admitted to
be continuing to distribute Linux and said they intended to stop by December
2004.
Just to pick one figure in this, here's a few statements ALL from SCO's Blake
Stowell
1. We are not distributing Linux
http://www.ecommercetimes.com/story/21678.html - 11 June 2003
However, Stowell said, when the company discovered that its source code had been
incorporated into Red Hat (Nasdaq: RHAT) Linux, it stopped distributing its own
version of Linux and ended any further Linux development. This move, he noted,
showed that SCO was acting according to a GPL clause that could shore up its
case.
"After the preamble, it says the code has to be contributed knowingly in
order to be considered part of the GPL license," he explained.
Like the difference between "dead" and "almost dead,"
everything hangs on one word. Stowell maintains that because SCO never knowingly
contributed proprietary Unix code to Linux, and ceased distributing GPL'ed code
when it discovered the error, the company is off the hook.
2. We are still distributing Linux
26 September 2003 -http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/26/HNibmclaim_1.html
SCO has not sold the SCO Linux software in question since May 12, but the
company continues to distribute it via the Internet to honor existing support
contracts, said SCO spokesman Blake Stowell.
3. We can distribute if we want
26 September 2003 -http://www.infoworld.com/article/03/09/26/HNibmclaim_1.html
Stowell disputed the idea that SCO could no longer distribute Linux. "We're
the copyright holder for the core Unix operating system. If we want to charge
someone a licensing fee for using our copyrighted software that's gone into
Linux, then we have that prerogative," he said. "If we want to
continue to distribute Linux to our existing customers, we can do that because
we own the copyrights on that Unix software."
Quatermass
IANAL IMHO etc
P.S.
More amusement from Stowell's mouth:
0. Two days before filing against IBM - We want to make Linux more useful
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-02_Story03.html - 4 March 2003
So far all that we have announced is that we are licensing our UNIX libraries
for use with Linux. The Linux community should actually see that as a very
positive thing because now customers have access to nearly 4,000 UNIX
applications that they didn't have before. So when you think about it from that
standpoint, SCO is actually helping to grow the application base for Linux
overnight by 4,000 applications. SCO is making Linux more useful.
0b. But we're not really sure (2 days before filing a $1bn claim against IBM)
whether there are any violations in Linux (same link as above):
SCO owns the core UNIX code that was originally developed by AT&T. Everyone
knows (and Linus has publicly stated) that Linux is a derivative of that UNIX
source code. Whether or not parts of SCO's UNIX intellectual property resides in
any parts of Linux is still being investigated. To comment further on that would
be pre-mature until we come to a conclusion on any findings
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Atticus on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:27 PM EDT |
Well, whaddya know? PJ wasn't kidding. I wonder if the media realize that...
perhaps this will just chalk it up to another rant from Groklaw. Gee, how
accurate these rants turn out to be.
I've downloaded the entire 600+ Megs. ...Hmm, I wonder what's on it? :-)
-Atticus, aka Mike Schwager
P.S. Any lawyer that may perhaps need a witness to attest can contact me at
gmail.com. My login name is mschwage. I have no connection to any of the
parties in this litigation.
P.P.S. Groklawians, it probably would be a good idea not to download it. I'm
doing so because there appear to be few posts to this thread so far, and it may
be a good idea to have a copy of it lying around in case of future queries about
it. But we don't want to slam their servers. That would be mean-spirited, and
not in the spirit of Groklaw.
---
--
-Atticus (who is not a lawyer :-) aka Mike Schwager)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tangomike on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:39 PM EDT |
"SCO has an obligation to stockholders, customers and employees to protect
the value of its assets. SCO is also sympathetic to the end-user’s predicament.
SCO has determined that it can accommodate both conditions by offering a license
that cures the IP infringement in Linux. This new license is called "SCO
Intellectual Property Protection" and applies to commercial use of the
Linux 2.4 and later versions. The license insures that Linux end users can
continue to run their business uninterrupted without misusing SCO's Intellectual
Property. " - http://www.thescogroup.com/scosource/ipprotection.html
So they're giving it away on their ftp site including the source code, and
claiming I then must buy a license for the BINARY bits that supposedly belong to
them. The words 'SCO 'and 'Intellect' should not be in the same sentence.
---
Deja moo - I've heard that bull before.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 01:53 PM EDT |
The real plan, SCO is following to, is as easy as it is effective. Just do
averything weird and the critics drop off by getting mad. Don't you see them
jumping around, laughing load and in a slightly mad tone?
You see?
cb[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 02:47 PM EDT |
You can almost hear the LooneyTunes theme music!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: the_flatlander on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 03:05 PM EDT |
However, most components, including all components licensed
under the GNU General Public License (GPL), do not prohibit you from copying,
modifying and/or reselling those components, for any price you
want.
I'm so confused. Isn't this statement
in direct contradiction of a certain [pro se lunatic] individual's chief claim
in the illegality of the GPL? How can the SCOundrels hope to get the GPL
declared unconstitutional if their own web site claims that it doesn't violate
the law that their scok-puppet, (I know, that's an intentional typo), in Indiana
is basing his whole [lame-brained] case on?
The Flatlander
I've said it
before: To call this SCOundrels morons is to slander honest, hard-working morons
everywhere. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Jude on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 03:15 PM EDT |
It would be interesting to know if this particular set of files includes
components that SCO is suing IBM over, such as JFS, RCU, and NUMA. Anyone got a
clue?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tce on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 03:35 PM EDT |
When in Danger, When in Doubt
Run in Circles, SCREAM and SHOUT...
Louder, Louder, Faster, Faster,
ONE MORE TIME
[repeat]
Can be introduced to little ones that might later need a SCOolding. Works good
after Thanksgiving dinner :-)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 03:36 PM EDT |
Nazgul 1 chuckling: They've found another.
Nazgul 2 smiling: I
suppose they posted links to it like the others?
Nazgul 1 grinning: Of
course!
Nazgul 2 slightly serious: Anything new?
Nazgul 1
getting disinterested: Nah, just another of the long list we'd already pulled
early in the case.
Nazgul 2: Figures. A slight amusing distraction for
us but it's gotta be distracting as all-get-out for the SCOG.
Nazgul 1
grinning: I'd sure hate to be them at this point...
Legal
Disclaimer: This is a work of fiction and in no way is reflective of any actual
situation or individuals that may have held this conversation even though there
is a high possibility of said scenario. ;)
RAS[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Glenn on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 04:09 PM EDT |
Any lawyers out there care to comment? How many of IBM's affirmative defenses
seem to apply here? Unclean hands (an understatement)? Laches and delay?
Promissary Esttopel? Equitable Estoppel? The SCOG has to prove they own any
copyrights in question, although they seem to have mostly abandoned that claim.
Novel's contactual right to act on the SCOG's behalf?
Methods and concepts that have been in the wild for years?
The only eggs that the SCOG has in its basket is that one teensy line about
derivative works being protected as if they were the original product.
If Judge Kimball rules that such only applies to the parts of the derivative
works were actually from Sys V, there is essentially nothing left of the case.
Everything that the SCOG is bleating about hangs on that ruling.
It does not matter if they were to really find millions of lines of code from
AIX anf Dynix in Linux contributed by IBM, if it did not come from Sys V, it
would not be pertinent.
Actually I am hoping that The SCOG's Edgeclick software really takes off.
Wouldn't it be so ironic and poetic justice if they do finally come up with a
winner and the company actually have something of value to pay off some of the
damages they are going to be liable for when IBM and RedHat get through with
them.
Of course, we have to be wary of a spinoff company that will take EdgeClick
with it if it were to become successful, leaving a burned out husk to be liable
for the damages that the SCOG is piling up.
Glenn[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Nick_UK on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 04:13 PM EDT |
But the question is, will all of this count in court?
Now, many who read here might know I distrust 'law' and
the way it works as law doesn't necessarily == right.
So, even though SCO are still distributing this stuff to
the Internet at large, free, under what appears to be GPL,
can/will IBM use this, or will the judges only rule on
what 'is before them'?
i.e., IBM have never claimed SCO still distribute what
they (IBM) are accused of infringing...
Nick[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: seeks2know on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
SCO can't be this stupid. Even stupid people have some reason (usually having
convoluted logic) for doing the things they do.
Is it possible that, as Caldera, that SCOX has a revenue stream from long-term
Linux support contracts???
---
There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it
steadily."
-- George Washington
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 05:31 PM EDT |
Yep, kernel source to 2.4.12. The fun stuff, however, is in the patchfiles:
patch-2.4.10-ac10-ia64kdb
patch-2.4.12-ac6
Here is a snippet from patch-2.4.12-ac, adding SMP support to
IBM's Power PC 64 bits. Note the acknowledgement of
Mike Coorigan, us.ibm.com:
+/*
+ *
+ *
+ * SMP support for ppc.
+ *
+ * Written by Cort Dougan (cort@cs.nmt.edu) borrowing a great
+ * deal of code from the sparc and intel versions.
+ *
+ * Copyright (C) 1999 Cort Dougan <cort@cs.nmt.edu>
+ *
+ * PowerPC-64 Support added by Dave Engebretsen, Peter Bergner, and
+ * Mike Corrigan {engebret|bergner|mikec}@us.ibm.com
+ *
+ * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
+ * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License
+ * as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version
+ * 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.
+ */
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
So? I can distribute it if I want to as well. It's free software. I don't see
what the issue is about. Slow news day?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: gfolkert on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 06:13 PM EDT |
ftp://ftp.iso.caldera.com/ now has nothing in it.
Except a pub dir, which was modified 50 minutes ago August 11, 2006 at 21:21:00
GST.
FUNNY. They are reading this thing PJ.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: kh on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 08:29 PM EDT |
Fyodor who distributes nmap got SCO to stop distibuting nmap. Recently some
kernel people insisted that kororaa not distribute binary drivers with the
kernel because it broke the GPL.
Why don't those same people
revoke SCO's right to distribute the kernel?
SCO
Corporation of Lindon, Utah (formerly Caldera) has lately taken to an
extortion
campaign of demanding license fees from Linux users for code that
they
themselves knowingly distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL. They have
also
refused to accept the GPL, claiming that some preposterous theory of
theirs
makes it invalid (and even unconstitutional)! Meanwhile they have
distributed
GPL-licensed Nmap in (at least) their "Supplemental Open Source
CD".
In response to these blatant violations, and in accordance with section 4
of the
GPL, we hereby terminate SCO's rights to redistribute any versions of
Nmap in
any of their products, including (without limitation) OpenLinux,
Skunkware,
OpenServer, and UNIXWare. We have also stopped supporting the
OpenServer and
UNIXWare platforms.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- An idea - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 13 2006 @ 09:32 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 08:42 PM EDT |
| Trolling to inflame and political off-topic. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 09:57 PM EDT |
All that is missing is a little running around madly
music.
You mean sorta like this?
:)
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac Jaffee, "Sports
Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 11:10 PM EDT |
Can scox say that since ibm has exposed their "black art" source code:
the secret is out, the damage is done, the genie is out of the bottle, and there
is no way for anybody to un-do the damage.
In that case, there would be no reason for scox *not* to distribe the source
code. Linux is way to wide-spread for the zooper zecret to be contained at this
point. In effect, there is no way for scox to mitigate the damages.
Scox is not asking that ibm make the code secret again - that can not happen.
Scox is asking that they be properly compensated for the damage that is already
done.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ak on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 11:25 PM EDT |
The DNS-entry is gone:
$ traceroute
ftp.iso.caldera.com
traceroute: unknown host ftp.iso.caldera.com
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bliss on Friday, August 11 2006 @ 11:57 PM EDT |
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<TITLE>Caldera Supplemental Open Source Software Licenses</TITLE>
<LINK REV="made" HREF="mailto:contrib@caldera.com">
<meta name="resource-type" content="document">
<meta name="description" content="Caldera Supplemental Open
Source Software">
<meta name="keywords" content="Caldera Supplemental Open
Source Software">
<meta name="distribution" content="global">
<meta HTTP-EQUIV="Content-type" content="text/html;
charset=iso-8859-1">
</HEAD>
<BODY bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#003399"
link="#0066CC" alink="#FFCC00"
vlink="#660033" leftmargin="0" topmargin="0"
marginwidth="0" marginheight="0">
<CENTER>
<table width=600 border="0" cellspacing="0"
cellpadding="0">
<tr>
<td align="center" valign="top">
<TABLE CELLSPACING="0" CELLPADDING="0"
BORDER="0">
<TR>
<TD><p align="center">
<img src="images/contributed.jpeg" border=0
alt="Caldera OpenLinux Supplemental Open Source Software">
</p>
</TD>
</TR>
<TR>
<TD><p
align="center"><hr></p><p></TD>
</TR>
</TABLE>
</td></tr>
<tr><td align=center valign="top"><p>
<P>
<CENTER><H1>Licenses</H1></CENTER>
<P>
<HR>
<P>
</td></tr>
<tr><td align=left>
The software on the Caldera Supplemental Open Source Software CD-ROM is
licensed under a variety of terms. Most components are licensed under
the terms of either the GNU General Public License or the GNU Library
General Public License.
<P>
Licenses used by components on this CD include or are similar to:
<UL>
<LI><A HREF=info/gpl.html>GNU General Public License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/lgpl.html>GNU Library General Public
License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/Artistic.html>Artistic License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/MPL.html>Mozilla Public License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/NPL.html>Netscape Public License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/OGPL.html>The Open Group Public License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/AST.html>The AST Open Source License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/other.html#xlic>X Consortium License</A>
<LI><A HREF=info/other.html#berk>Berkeley Based Licenses</A>
</UL>
Many of the components are "freeware" with no restrictions on their
redistribution.
Some components may restrict their use to non-commercial purposes
or require a license fee for commercial use (e.g.
<A HREF=info/mbrlicen.html>MBROLA</A>). Some components may be
redistributed
with special permission from the author(s) as is the case with
<A HREF=info/kisdn.txt>KISDN</A>.
<P>
To determine the licensing conditions for a particular component, see the
corresponding source in the <A HREF="SRPMS">source
rpm</A>. As a convenience,
a <A HREF=info/licenses.html>list of components and their
licenses</A> has
been prepared based on the information in the RPM spec file for that component.
</P>
<P>
Due to space limitations or duplication, a few source RPMS have been made
available electronically rather than being included on the CD-ROM. The source
RPMs for the xroot, Enhydra, Enhydra-Demos, gimp, gimp-data-extras,
gimp-print, enlightenment, mozilla, freefonts, cbt, openmotif, misterhouse
and ttf packages are available via
<A HREF=http://www.caldera.com/support/contrib/src/>
http://www.caldera.com/support/contrib/src/</A>. The source for Enhydra
is
available via <A
HREF=http://www.enhydra.org>http://www.enhydra.org</A>.
</P>
</td></tr></table>
<!--End of content area-->
</CENTER>
</BODY>
</HTML>
---
Information becomes fragmented, knowledge does not. What causes fragmentation in
information is scholasticism - Ramitani[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: cmc on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 02:54 AM EDT |
I know it's been a long strange trip, and I probably have things very much
confused in this brain of mine, but if you believe SCO's theory that everything
even mentioned in the same sentence as "UNIX" belongs to them, then
wouldn't SCO be legally allowed to distribute anything they hold the copyright
to, while still legally preventing someone else from distributing something they
haven't yet distributed?
In other words, in SCOtheory:
1. IBM developed some code which "touched" AIX, hence SCO now owns
the copyright on that code.
2. IBM contributed that code to Linux. SCO did not give them permission to do
so. IBM is now in violation of their contract (and guilty of copyright
infringement since SCO holds the copyright).
3. SCO distributes that same code in their distribution of Linux. As the
copyright holders, they have the right to do this. Because they are
distributing the code, it is now legally acceptable for IBM to distribute that
same code under the GPL. However, for the time between point 2 and point 3, IBM
was not legally allowed to distribute this code.
Does that make sense? I know it doesn't in normal-land, but what about if you
try to go by SCOtheory?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: DaveJakeman on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 09:33 AM EDT |
As I thought I understood it, Skunkware is a collection of free/open source
utilities assembled and distributed by SCO to undermine their case.
But why would Skunkware include the Linux kernel? Is that ISO image bootable or
something? I'm not disputing whether the ISO image contains the kernel, I just
don't see why it needs it. Could someone enlighten me?
For the non-technical types, it might be handy for someone to post a directory
listing of their newly burned CD.
---
Unfortunately for us, common sense is not very common.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it out on the accuser.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 01:25 PM EDT |
I think it's a very friendly act on PJ's part to help SCO clean up their web
site like this, since whole directories seem to be disappearing after her posts.
Maybe we could make this a community project, and report dead links, bad
scripts, etc., we find on SCO's site. Their webmaster probably isn't on the list
for getting big bonuses while the company is wasting its resources on dumb
lawsuits, and may even be underpaid, so I'm sure he/she would appreciate the
effort on our part.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: hardcode57 on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 02:01 PM EDT |
| is gone. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 04:48 PM EDT |
Sorry, I couldn't find the usual "Corrections Here Please" thread...
and shall not start one because I'm only anonymous. :-)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jog on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 06:12 PM EDT |
Search ebay for "unixware".
The only thing they seem to be able to move are eval. kits.
Pity the clueless person paying $94.00 for 60 days of
UW 7.1.4.
jog[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jazzyjoe on Saturday, August 12 2006 @ 06:27 PM EDT |
SCO will probably argue that it doesn't matter that the Linux kernel, including
ELF and assorted M&C's were up for grabs on their various websites.
Their defence might go something like this:
When you buy a music cd, you obtain permission to play the copyrighted material
on that cd. You do not have permission to redistribute that material. Same thing
goes for stuff on the SCO websites. You pay the price (hey, visiting the SCO
website is a hefty price to pay!), and obtain the material for your personal
use. IBM payed a price as well (the contract), but went on and redistributed the
material. If the RIAA can come down on you for distributing a song, then surely
SCO is entitled to 5 billion.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, August 13 2006 @ 01:13 AM EDT |
Yee, without sin cast the first stone...
Oh, never mind!
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ExcludedMiddle on Monday, August 14 2006 @ 10:12 AM EDT |
While this is an amusing find, this just shouldn't be necessary. It does make
them look foolish, however.
Their original well-documented distribution of the entire kernel under the GPL
from their servers before this case should be enough for them to lose.
Their bizarre "I didn't KNOW it was in there" defense, should it be
valid, would let anyone release code under any license at all, and then say
"We take it back!" The GPL does not allow any copyright holder to
revoke the license to the material released under it once released.
The more I think about the GPL, then more frustrated I am that at least that
particular PSJ didn't get upheld. It should have been as simple as: "No
matter what your claim, SCO, you licensed this material under the GPL. End of
story." The fact that a software company can even claim not to know what
code is being released from their own servers is ludicrous.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, August 15 2006 @ 06:58 AM EDT |
Since SCO's alternative view of reality claims that the GPL is invalid,
distributing anything under GPL isn't a violation of GPL because, well, GPL
would be invalid, therefore they aren't really distributing under any license.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
