|
"Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera" |
|
Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 07:55 AM EST
|
SCO recently told the court with a straight face that "it is undisputed that SCO did not modify Linux". Well. I don't think that word means what SCO thinks it means. Here's something for the historical record on planet Earth. First, from the Linux kernel, 2.6.18, something that Groklaw's tredman found, a comment: Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera. For verification of the comment, copyright notices, and more on SCO's contributions, tredman has a fine collection. SCO seems to have grave difficulty remembering what Santa Cruz and Caldera used to do, but happily Groklaw is here to lend a hand.
As for Santa Cruz, you'll find a then-Santa Cruz employee Tigran Aivazian in the credits list also in that same section: Tigran Aivazian: fixed "0.00 in /proc/uptime on
SMP" bug. As Groklaw reported years ago in 2003 when the farce began, he was a Santa Cruz employee who made many kernel contributions and he told Groklaw that he made the contributions to SMP as an employee and with his boss's knowledge and approval. Caldera employees made contributions to the kernel too, on the job. For Christoph Hellwig's contributions while he was a Caldera employee, go here and here, the latter link providing evidence his contributions were also official and providing a link to a Bradley Kuhn quotation that SCO assigned some of its copyrights to FSF in some cases, which tells one that when there is no copyright in the kernel, it may just indicate that the copyright was assigned to another entity or individual. Kuhn: "Indeed, FSF holds documents from SCO regarding some of this code. SCO has disclaimed copyright on changes that were submitted and assigned by their employees to key GNU operating system components. Why would SCO itself allow their employees to assign copyright to FSF, and perhaps release SCO's supposed 'valuable proprietary trade secrets' in this way?" Finally, here's a collection of research Dr. Stupid, Alex Roston, Rand McNatt, nw and I did in 2003 refuting SCO Group's claim that it never "authorized, approved or knowingly released" RCU, JFS, NUMA and SMP in Linux, research Groklaw's readers then built on. For more copyright notices, Groklaw member sk43 found some here and here and here. Anonymous contributes this one. As for SCO's new claim (raised for the first time so far as I can tell in the Reply Memorandum) that Linus used Sun manuals when writing the kernel, here's some research I did, which indicates to me that SCO has just leaped off the BSD cliff again. Which has a way of making them go splat. Every time. Update: An anonymous reader found this:
Nobody responded with a source for the POSIX standards, so I went to Plan B. I tracked down the manuals for the Sun Microsystems version of Unix at the university, which was operating a Sun server. The manuals contained a basic version of the system calls that was good enough to help me get by. It was possible to look at the manual pages to see what the system call was supposed to do, and then set about the task of implementing it from there. The manual pages didn't say how to do it, they just said what the end results were. I also gleaned some of the system calls from Andrew Tanenbaum's book and a few others. Eventually someone sent me the thick books containing the POSIX standards.
Chapter 6, pages 79-80. "Just for Fun" ISBN 1-58799-080-6 Even better. You'd think SCO would have at least read Linus' book.
|
|
Authored by: feldegast on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:20 AM EST |
If required
---
IANAL
My posts are ©2004-2007 and released under the Creative Commons License
Attribution-Noncommercial 2.0
P.J. has permission for commercial use.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: XORisOK on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:21 AM EST |
Don't forget the clickie thingies!
---
Cogito Ergo ZOOM - "I think, Therefore I drive fast!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Hybrid code. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:24 AM EST
- Fluendo makes proprietary codecs available to Linux users - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:09 AM EST
- Pre-release stock jump - Authored by: UglyGreenTroll on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:41 AM EST
- "When the farce began:" Literary metaphors - Authored by: mexaly on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:45 AM EST
- How The RIAA Is Like 17th Century French Button-Makers - Authored by: Fractalman on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:54 AM EST
- Test-Driving New Knoppix - Authored by: jplatt39 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:56 AM EST
- The probability of SCO wining here may depend on the CH - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 12:55 PM EST
- Linus comments on DRM, GPLv3 - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:07 PM EST
- OT - SCOG v. IBM Responses to Requests for Admissions - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 03:29 PM EST
- MS position vs. Open Source -- exposed - Authored by: hardmath on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 03:36 PM EST
- I haven't seen this article before - Authored by: Rad59 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:33 PM EST
- GL RSS feed works, GL News Picks doesn't - why? - Authored by: gfim on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:58 PM EST
- Things That Make You Go, Hmmm... - Authored by: TheBlueSkyRanger on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 07:25 PM EST
- UL Arbitration timeline - Authored by: stomfi on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:45 PM EST
- Teacher gets fired for using Windows - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:23 PM EST
- OT - Becta report on office products - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 06:10 AM EST
- A couple of things... - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 03:57 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:21 AM EST |
yes there are some of us still out here.....for now
January 12, 2006
Dear
SCO Customers and Partners:
As 2006 has come to a close and we begin a new
year, I want to provide you with the CEO's update on our products and our
business. The vantage point of the CEO's office provides a perspective that
others are not giving.
First and foremost, on behalf of our employees,
stockholders and numerous worldwide partners, I want to personally thank each of
you for your business and your loyalty to our products. SCO is committed to
enhancing and innovating our product lines and seeing them evolve. In recent
years we have provided you with key new releases of UnixWare 7.1.4 and
OpenServer 6. We are proud of our UNIX product heritage, including its
performance, stability and security and we will continue to develop, sell,
maintain, and support our UNIX products for our customers.
We continue to work
with hardware system providers to certify many of their servers with the latest
SCO UNIX offerings. New hardware certifications are updated on a weekly basis
from systems provided by Acer, DELL, Fujitsu-Siemens, HCL, HP, Intel and many
others. These vendors continue to certify their systems for SCO UNIX because
customers continue to require the reliability, security and performance that SCO
OpenServer and UnixWare offer. This gives you, our customers, a broader choice
of hardware to choose from.
In addition to our UNIX business, it's been
encouraging to see the innovations taking place with our Me Inc. mobile
technologies. Our mobile technologies are attracting new customers, while at the
same time providing our existing customers with a way to use their applications
in a mobile business environment.
Our Me Inc. mobile technologies are helping
customers in significant ways. Products like Shout and Shout Postcard are
helping people communicate in innovative and productive ways. HipCheck helps
companies remotely manage and control their IT systems. The anticipated
Day-Timers Mobile solution will help increase personal productivity. These new
mobile solutions are made possible through our new Me Inc. Mobility Server,
which is the back-end server technology that does much of the heavy lifting to
make mobile phones substantially more powerful and useful. This provides our
customers with a richer mobile experience and a greater affinity for our
products.
Our efforts to protect our intellectual property continue through
the legal system. We continue to believe in the merits of our cases with IBM and
Novell and look forward to a successful resolution of those claims. Although we
have had a few setbacks in the court proceedings, important and significant
claims remain in the case. In other words, to paraphrase a line from Mr. Twain,
the rumors of our death have been greatly exaggerated.
We recognize we have
invested heavily in protecting our intellectual property. While we expect to
continue incurring legal expenses in 2007, our expectation is that those
expenses will be less than they have been in prior years. Some of the larger
expenses related to IBM discovery, expert witness and technical expert reports
are now behind us. With these expenditures behind us, the outlook for the
Company's cash expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year is in a very manageable
position.
We are committed to operating our UNIX business on a cash flow
positive basis and we will make any necessary adjustments in our business in
2007 to accomplish that. With the combination of our existing UNIX business
coupled with our new Me Inc. mobile products and services, I believe SCO is
positioned to see improved results during this fiscal year.
We are honored to
call you our customers and partners and we look forward to earning your business
every day. As time permits, please stay in touch with me and let me know how we
can better serve you. I look forward to reporting our progress to you throughout
the coming year.
Warm regards,
Darl McBride
President and CEO
The SCO
Group, Inc.
This letter is subject to the safe harbor statement regarding
forward-looking statements included in our Current Report on Form 8-K filed with
the SEC on January 12, 2007.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kinrite on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:38 AM EST |
How can anyone post anonymously to a members only article?Link Very odd, but they added info to the debate.
--- "Truth is
like energy...it can not be created, nor destroyed" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Kevin on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 08:42 AM EST |
I love how liars try to make their lies into the truth
by twisting the meanings of words. One that SCO seems
excessively fond of is its own name. It would appear
that in the statement in question, by "SCO" is meant
"the company formerly known as Caldera International"
which is of course distinct from both "the Santa Cruz
Operation" and "Caldera Systems."
Let us thank Someone that SCO wasn't successful in its
attempt to get itself listed as "doing business as"
"Unix System Laboratories," or we'd have yet another
cloud of smoke and roomful of mirrors to hide the truth.
---
73 de ke9tv/2, Kevin (P.S. My surname is not McBride!)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:13 AM EST |
From an
old posting by myself,
when
www.webarchive.org/www.archive.org
still was accessible to www.sco.com
etc (later that use
was banned through the use of a robots.txt
file):
"Reading an old Caldera FAQ from 1996 stored at
WebArchive,
I found the following gem at point
3.5:
"3.5 What free projects has
Caldera supported?
Portions of the IPX protocol stack have been
contributed
back to the Linux community by Caldera. Other small
contributions
have been made in other areas of Linux such
as the Wabi/Wine support, the
DOSEMU project. Caldera has
purchased some hardware to facilitate the
multiprocessor version of Linux that is under
development".
Italics in bold added later by me."
That was posted 30 Dec
2003. Please also see the
follow-ups for a more complete
picture.
--
--- -------------------------
-
IM Absolutely Not A Lawyer [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:13 AM EST |
The SMP comment doesn't prove that Caldera contributed SMP to Linux, actually
quite the opposite.
They
bought an SMP machine for Alan Cox, but they didn't hire him, and the code
he contributed was nothing to do with them - indeed, to say that it was their
contribution would be to take the credit for the work away from Alan. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Here examples of kernel improvements by Santa Cruz/Caldera/SCO - Authored by: IMANAL on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:22 AM EST
- "Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera" - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:28 AM EST
- "Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera" - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:14 AM EST
- Unclean hands - Authored by: jbb on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:21 AM EST
- Clean hands - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 12:05 PM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 09:33 AM EST
- Estoppel - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 09:46 AM EST
- good misdirection by the parent - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 12:03 PM EST
- SMP, testing, and check in. - Authored by: hAckz0r on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 01:55 PM EST
- Darl may have told the truth, while telling a lie! - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 06:27 PM EST
- more bad news for linux fans - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 07:31 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:20 AM EST |
Hold on now - we have to remember that SCO is Santa Cruz ONLY when it's
convenient. Also, SCO is Caldera ONLY when it's convenient.
In this case, SCO is stating that THE SCO GROUP is a separate entity completely
from either Caldera or Santa Cruz, and THE SCO GROUP never contributed any
material to the Linux kernel.
It's all in the manner of thinking.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DodgeRules on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:30 AM EST |
This may not be original code or development, but it is a rather interesting email from Tigran to Linus
concerning a "simple patch to 3c509.c and 3c59x.c drivers" (complete with headers).
And
then let us not forget this
email from Tigran which starts:
"The stuff below is no longer a
secret so I think I can share it with you. It does mention Linux quite a few
times and may even answer someone's question as to whether SCO is interested at
all in Linux."
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:38 AM EST |
I think this could almost rate as another GPL loophole... If you have
changes/fixes and directly submit them back upstream and the distribution is
modified by the maintainers instead of you, then you have not modified what you
are distributing and thus do not invoke the GPL.
On the other hand, only
the tiniest of actual modifications is required to invoke. So people are
perhaps looking in the wrong place. Something as simple as adding a file in the
distribution so that it bears the Caldera name or combining with different GNU
utilities would make it a modified derivitive work, IMHO and IANAL. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: drreagan on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:46 AM EST |
>I don't think that word means what SCO thinks it means
"Hello. My
name is Darl McBride. You killed my Lawsuit. Prepare to be lied to." [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: PeteS on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:51 AM EST |
All the SMP releases etc., would be announced and discussed on the Linux Kernel
Mailing List (unofficial archive at http://lkml.org/).
I'll run a search later for SMP threads.
PeteS
---
Only the truly mediocre are always at their best[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:13 AM EST |
Were Hellwig's contributions passed to the FSF?
Christoph Hellwig's contributions would surely be clearly SCO owned IP in Linux.
And I am pretty sure IBM clearly asked for SCO to describe all that sort of
stuff.
This would be a pretty glaring lack of disclosure on SCO's part. Especially
telling since their code searches should have found it. So it smacks of very
willful exclusion from discovery. Not something SCO would want to disclose given
it damages their case but something they should have disclosed given normal
practice.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: MplsBrian on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:16 AM EST |
Just curious, but when SCO claims it is undisputed that SCO did not modify
Linux, could they be referring to fact discovery rather than reality? As I
think back and attempt to recollect early lessons from Groklaw, I recall that
when replying in the early stages of a lawsuit, you have to deny any statement
of fact, otherwise implicitly admit it as true. Is it possible that in one of
their filings, SCO claimed to not have modified Linux and IBM did not correct
the assertion, thus allowing SCO to make the claim now? It seems unlikely, but
it seems equally unlikely that they would try to get away with an outright lie
as well.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: inode_buddha on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:27 AM EST |
I don't have links handy, but ISTR that Caldera gave Alan Cox an early SMP box
for devel.
---
-inode_buddha
Copyright info in bio
"When we speak of free software,
we are referring to freedom, not price"
-- Richard M. Stallman[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:16 AM EST |
ZDNet Au
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/software/soa/DRM_GPLv3_is_hot_air_Linus_Torvalds/0,
130061733,339273084,00.htm
DRM, GPLv3 just 'hot air': Linus Torvalds
Personally I believe that it might be best to listen to legal experts when it
comes to law and a computer expert when it comes to computers. Also, I do not
believe a legal expert is a computer expert or a computer expert a legal expert
regardless of their other qualifications.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: DaveJakeman on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:27 AM EST |
SCO:
it is undisputed that SCO did not modify
Linux
[another day, another breath]
SCO:
Open
Source or Commercial
Red Hat has gone on record that they will focus on
Open Source
software. They will only bundle software that is free and
opensourced,
they have announced. Caldera, on the other hand, has had
a
different position, one that combines the best of Open Source
software with
compatible commercial products. In many instances,
where commercial products
have not been found, Caldera has
developed or funded the development of
applications and utilities for
the Linux community, and then given them to the
Open Source
community. Some such funding and development projects
include:
- IPX specification for the Linux kernel
- SPX development
in the Linux kernel
- DOSEMU development, a DOS emulator for Linux
- WINE,
a windows emulator for Linux
- Sponsor and architect of the RPM Package
Manager
- WABI development and extensions
- SMP
- Ethernet and
Frame Relay drivers for the Linux kernel
- K Desktop Environment (KDE)
-
NT drivers for the XFree Organization
- Streams patches
- Netscape for
Linux
- Fast Track for Linux
- Novell Netware Client for Linux
- NFS
for Linux
- WordPerfect for Linux
- StarOffice
- Caldera Open
Administration System (COAS)
- Lizard, the Linux installation wizard
In
addition, Caldera encouraged the porting of many commercial
products to Linux,
and has from time to time included version of
commercial products in their
product offerings.
An extract from:
The Differences between
Caldera Linux and Red Hat Linux [PDF:294k]
by Dean R Zimmerman of Caldera;
March 7, 2001.
...did so!
--- I would rather stand corrected than
sit confused.
---
Should one hear an accusation, try it on the accuser. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Did not, did so, did not, did so... - Authored by: John Hasler on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:41 AM EST
- Did not, did so, did not, did so... - Authored by: DebianUser on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:59 AM EST
- Did not, did so, did not, did so... - Authored by: pooky on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:21 PM EST
- Did not, did so, did not, did so... - Authored by: Upholder on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:42 PM EST
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:57 AM EST |
Yea, NewSCO didn't 'modify' Linux, they made up new parts out of whole cloth.
Yea, that's the ticket! [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 12:42 PM EST |
In an interview here, Linus Torvalds gives his motivation
for going with open source.
Torvalds believes that despite all
the arguments about which technology or software development methodology is
better, 'good technology' will win in the end.
"One of the issues I have is
that the most important thing is good technology. It's not about being
commercial or non-commercial, open source or closed source. To me, the reason I
do open source is, it is fun. That is the most basic thing.
"I also happen
to believe that it is the best way to, eventually, get the best end result. Part
of that is the 'eventually'. At any particular point in time, it may not always
be the best thing right then," he said.
--bystander1313[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 12:45 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 01:38 PM EST
- PJ, you just love pulling a leg here and there, - Authored by: wood gnome on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:01 PM EST
- The match isn't over yet ;) n/t - Authored by: jog on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:36 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 03:14 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:30 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:51 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:55 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: l8gravely on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:16 PM EST
- Linus emphasizes technology over politics - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:32 PM EST
- Please move parent to Off Topic Thread (N/T) - Authored by: Sneakster on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 01:38 PM EST
- Betamax, anyone ? /nt - Authored by: artp on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:36 PM EST
|
Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 01:00 PM EST |
Why did SCO make such, easy to dispute, claim?
The obvious danger is that IBM will dispute that and as a
result the court will treat SCO as a proven lier.
But what is the the reason to take such a risk?
Two possible answer:
1) SCO is stupid.
My problem with this answer: "nobody can be that stupid".
2) SCO is crazy.
My problem with this answer: "there is no method in the crazyness".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:34 PM EST |
How do you tell the judge that the other side is not telling the truth?
If the oposite side filles some "Reply Memo in Support of Motion for SJ on
whatever" and you can see and you have the proof that they are telling
outright lies?
What kind of document do you file? A motion? A brief?
How do you present a document the court hasn't asked you to produce?
How do you present a PROOF to the court
"look, your majesty, the oposing site just told the court an outright lie
and here are several documents that show it"
Yours truly ...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: seanlynch on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 02:51 PM EST |
I don't read the BSD license the way the author does.
I don't see any requirements about retaining access to source code downstream,
only requirements that the License and the copyright notice be made available to
downstream users.
I don't want to insult the author, but his reasoning sounds like reading Daniel
Wallace. I don't derive the author's conclusions from reading the BSD license.
BSD is more permisive, but the GPL imposes more 'freedom' downstream.
They are both good licenses, and I'm glad we have both to work with.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 03:30 PM EST |
First, excellent research. This is the sort of thing I come to Groklaw for.
But a question: If SCO supported the development of SMP support in Linux not by
contributing code but rather by contributing hardware for the development of
code, where would that leave us (or SCO, for that matter)?
Clearly SCO (aka Caldera) contributed code to Linux and to other GPL'ed projects
(you'd just have to ask Ransom Love or others who worked for Caldera at the time
about that), but I recall that SMP was something that TSCOG was making a big
deal about coming from someone (IBM was it? I've lost track).
I'm sure it's about them knowing what was going on, it's only more damaging to
them if they actually contributed code - but the intention to support it means
they really can't claim ignorance...[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 03:59 PM EST |
Sorry. I know this is silly.
Maybe, in their alternate universe, The SCO Group have a new theory that they
have yet to espouse publicly: that any software developed on computer hardware
that was donated, loaned or otherwise provided by themselves or, crucially, by
one of their predecessors-in-interest, must, naturally, belong to The SCO Group.
I mean, c'mon IBM, surely that's obvious?
;o)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kurtwall on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:11 PM EST |
But wait! There's more:
drivers/char/drm/drm_context.c:
* ChangeLog:
* 2001-11-16 Torsten Duwe <duwe@caldera.de>
* added context constructor/destructor
hooks,
* needed by SiS driver's memory management.
drivers/net/tlan.h:
* Linux ThunderLAN Driver
*
* tlan.c
* by James Banks
*
* (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
* Linux ThunderLAN Driver
*
* tlan.h
* by James Banks
*
* (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/scsi/advansys.c:
Erik Ratcliffe <erik@caldera.com> has done testing of
the AdvanSys driver in the Caldera releases.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c:
* Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
<greg@caldera.com>
* Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit
liability nor provide
* warranty for any of this software. This material
is provided
* "AS-IS" and at no charge.
sound/oss/nm256_audio.c:
* 19-04-2001 Marcus Meissner <mm@caldera.de>
* Ported to 2.4 PCI API.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:31 PM EST |
Or scox claiming that calder is not SCO? [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kawabago on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:47 PM EST |
SCO would no doubt claim Linus just copied someone elses memoirs and pawned them
off as his own.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:48 PM EST |
In order to test these "early universe" hypotheses, one needs a
particle accelerator able to concentrate an amount of energy approximately equal
to the total energy content of the univers (with mass converted to equivalent
energy via E=mc^2, in a space equal to the volume of a sphere with radius equal
to the Planck length (10^-43 centemeters - that's 10 to the minus 43rd power, or
a decimal point, followed by 42 zeros, then a one). In other words, a nearly
infinite amount of energy in a nearly infinitely small space. Fortunately,
doing so is impossible with current technology, which is a good thing, since no
one really knows what would happen if such an experiment were carried out. Some
scientists think that valuable clues can be gleaned from more modest
experiments.
There are several theories that attempt to explain quantum phenomena. The
"many worlds theory" is one of them. The basic problem is that they
are all mathematically equivalent, which means that they all predict the same
results from any given experiment. Hence, at least at present, there is no
experiment that can choose between them.
Also, the "many worlds" hypothesis is dervied from quantum theory, not
from inflationary cosmology. Furthermore, the observed accelerating expansion of
the universe is not due to inflation, but rather to dark energy. Inflation
occurs in the very early universe, in the period of time between 10 to the -43
power seconds after the moment of creation, and 10 to the -35 power seconds (my
memory may not be reliable here - wikipedia or google on inflationary theory is
advised - but it's a very short time, miniscule fractions of a second), and is
caused by the collapse of something called the Higgs field, which is a
theoretical force field which decayed in that short period of inflation. As of
yet, no particle accelerator is capable of generating the energies needed to
detect the Higgs field. The Higgs field is a consequence of the existence of a
super-heavy particle called the Higgs boson, which no one has detected either.
Basically, the problem with theories of the early universe, meaning the first
few seconds after the moment of creation, is that they are untestable, because
they involve such enormous energies. Thus everything is based on theoretical
deductions from currently observed conditions. and also on the assumption that
the laws of physics then were the same as they are now.
Think about it - according to the big bang theory, all the matter and energy in
the universe was once concentrated in a sphere less than 10 to the minus 43
centimeters in diameter. It's a fascinating subject - search wikipedia for
"inflationary theory" for more.
Mike
Disclaimer - I'm not a physicist or cosmologist, just an engineer interested in
these subjects, and am working from memory, so I highly recommend independent
verification of what I've written.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Sunny Penguin on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 04:57 PM EST |
The SCO group may be two companies in one.
When asked key phrases they revert to Caldera; Other times they seem to be Old
SCO.
This can be treated, with corp electro-shock.....
Dr. SEC or Dr. Judge Fed can help.
---
This message sent from a laptop running Fedora core 6 with Intel wireless
networking.
Everything works....[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:01 PM EST |
1. Did IBM dispute this point in their response to SCO's PSJ motion? Has IBM
ever disputed this point somewhere else in this court case?
2. Has SCO ever raised this point anywhere else in this court case?
I'm pretty sure that it's not allowed in motion practice to slip some new
"facts" into the reply that weren't raised in either the motion or the
response. If this is what SCO is doing here, IBM will blow this out of the
water in the hearing by simply pointing out that, first, it was not raised
before so IBM didn't dispute it, and second, it's factually false (with a ton of
evidence to show it).
MSS2[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: XORisOK on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 05:59 PM EST |
PJ,
"Here's something for the historical record on planet Earth. First, from
the Linux kernel, 2.6.18, something that Groklaw's tredman found, a
comment:"
Is it there is previous releases, say 2.4?
---
Cogito Ergo ZOOM - "I think, Therefore I drive fast!"[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 09:00 PM EST |
It just takes a short grep of
the kernel sources to see where Caldera occurs:
____________________________________
jzy-desktop:~/linux-2.6.19# grep -r "Caldera" *
arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code
supported by Caldera.
arch/m32r/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code
supported by Caldera.
arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code
supported by Caldera.
CREDITS:S: Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/scsi/advansys.c: AdvanSys driver in the Caldera releases.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
<greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit
liability nor provide
jzy-desktop:~/linux-2.6.19#
_________________________________________
jzy-desktop:~/linux-2.4.29#
jzy-desktop:~/GW2348-4/simplir/linux-2.4.29# grep -r "Caldera" *
arch/x86_64/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code
supported by Caldera.
arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c: * Original development of Linux SMP code
supported by Caldera.
CREDITS:S: Caldera (Deutschland) GmbH
Documentation/networking/tlan.txt:(C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
Documentation/smp.tex:The author wishes to thank Caldera Inc.
( http://www.caldera.com )
Documentation/sound/CMI8338: b. Caldera OpenLinux 2.2
drivers/net/tlan.c: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/net/tlan.h: * (C) 1997-1998 Caldera, Inc.
drivers/scsi/advansys.c: AdvanSys driver in the Caldera releases.
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Portions Copyright (c) 1995 Caldera, Inc.
<greg@caldera.com>
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: * Neither Greg Page nor Caldera, Inc. admit
liability nor provide
net/ipx/af_ipx.c: KERN_INFO "IPX Portions Copyright (c) 1995
Caldera, Inc.n"
jzy-desktop:~/linux-2.4.29#
_____________________
After that, you can check out the individual files.
Looks like they contributed as early as 1995, and to both 2.4 and 2.6
versions. However the 2.6 stuff may have just been part of the 2.4 code
that didn't change when the move to 2.6 was made.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 10:03 PM EST |
"Even better. You'd think SCO would have at least read Linus' book."
I bet this IS SCO's evidence.
Keep in mind that SCO filed the evidence that was supposed to support this claim
about Linus and Sun UNDER SEAL. A quote fro someone's book doesn't sound like it
ought tobe under seal, but I guess we'll have to ask SCO about that.
Usually when SCO files under seal, it is because they want to avoid that their
evidence is laughed out of court before it even gets to court. Ref. the famous
SCOFORUM examples.
While IBM can surely take care of themselves, SCO has a stock price to maintain.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, January 16 2007 @ 11:16 PM EST |
This all reminds me of a quote from Star Trek... when the new Big Boss of the
Klingon Empire took charge, Worf said matter of factly that the Big Boss' first
act in office was to sequester himself in his office and rewrite history.
No SCO Group was always SCO. Caldera wasn't SCO Group. Linux was never a
serious comeptitor to SCO Unix. Caldera never said that. SCO never said Linux
was a benefit to Unix.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: blang on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 01:11 AM EST |
If Linus or others (pretty huge if) had copied UNIX source code left and right,
how would that help SCO's case? Last time I checked, defendant was IBM, not
Linus.
After all, IBM does not even do their own distro.
On the other hand, Caldera had redistributed the "tainted" code for
years, if it is tainted that is. No matter what the outcome, it reduces SCO's
case to little more than a joke.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 04:57 AM EST |
SCO wrote "It is also undisputed that SCO did not modify Linux. In paragraph
17 of its opposition memorandum, IBM states that SCO "made certain modifications
and additions to the Linux 2.4.19 kernel" and cites a Product Announcement.
However, the Product Announcement does not state that SCO made any modifications
and additions. SCO did not in fact make any modifications or additions to Linux;
rather, SCO redistributed Linux 2.4.19 as is on two disks that it received from
SuSE. (SCO Ex. 233 ¶¶ 18-23.) IBM presents no evidence
otherwise."
(my emphasis)
Could it be that they
expected to see File, Version and Line? We all know that you just need to "grep"
to find the Caldera copyright labels (and as has been demonstrated in the other
comments above) but maybe they are using IBM's own argument to make a
statement?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 12:19 PM EST |
I have a question. First and foremost, here are the relevant
quotes:
From SCO:
It is also undisputed that SCO did not
modify Linux. In paragraph 17 of its opposition memorandum, IBM states that SCO
"made certain modifications and additions to the Linux 2.4.19 kernel" and cites
a Product Announcement. However, the Product Announcement does not state that
SCO made any modifications and additions. SCO did not in fact make any
modifications or additions to Linux; rather, SCO redistributed Linux 2.4.19 as
is on two disks that it received from SuSE. (SCO Ex. 233 ¶¶ 18-23.) IBM presents
no evidence otherwise.
Referenced Paragraph from
IBM:
17. In developing SCO Linux Server 4.0, SCO also made
certain modifications and additions to the Linux 2.4.19 kernel, such that SCO
Linux Server 4.0 is a derivative work of the Linux 2.4.19 kernel within the
meaning of the GPL. (IBM Copy. Br. ¶¶ 12, 35; Ex. 474 at SCO1170557-558; Ex.
617; Ex. 128 § 2(b).)
Can anyone find the exhibits reference by
IBM? I've been looking through groklaw and tuxrucks but I cannot find any of
these exhibits to view the product announcement. I can't beleive being a public
statement this would be under seal so I assume I am not looking in the right
place. --- Many Bothans died to bring us this information. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- A quesiton - Authored by: PJ on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 01:57 PM EST
- A quesiton - Authored by: pooky on Wednesday, January 17 2007 @ 04:09 PM EST
|
|
|
|