|
Turning our attention back to SCO v. IBM, a nugget about errno.h and the GPL |
|
Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:20 PM EDT
|
Now that the Novell sideshow appears to be finished, subject to any appeals either side might
bring (or even requests for reconsideration), I think it's time to turn our attention back to the main tent, and that would be SCO v. IBM, which will be ramping up in due time. With that in mind, I found something that relates to two of SCO's claims, first that it can sue over header files and second that it never deliberately released any code under the GPL. It's a request for help on a message board back in 1999 from a user trying to compile something called R, which is a
language and environment for statistical computing and graphics, a GNU project. It runs on Windows and BSD and UNIX and Linux, and he was trying to get it to work on Caldera OpenLinux 2.3. The individual posts the problem encountered, which seems to involve a missing errno.h for linux file, and guess where the solution turns up? On one of Caldera's CDs that the person hadn't installed yet: The kernel-headers were not installed on my machine, but there is a package on the Open Linux 2.3 CD. I believe they weren't installed simply because I didn't choose to have all the development tools/libraries added when I installed linux. I didn't realize how soon I'd be compiling things.
2. The missing package that led to my posting to this list. It can be found on the COL install CD and is called linux-kernel-include.rpm. I'll show you both of the messages in full, and explain why I think this proves that Caldera did distribute under the GPL, making up a special package which included header files, and it distributed errno.h and one presumes the others on purpose, knowingly.
Here's the original message, asking for help:
[R] make errors while compiling
Kieran Healy (kjhealy@princeton.edu)
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 00:50:28 -0500
Dear R users -
I am a first-time R user trying to compile v.0.90.0 under Caldera OpenLinux 2.3, on a Dell PII400/128. I've encountered a problem with the make file.
First, I run configure, which appears to complete properly. (I had to download an updated gcc library from caldera for this to happen though.) At the end of its run, config reports:
> R is now configured for i686-unknown-linux
>
> Source directory: .
> Installation directory: /usr/local
> C compiler: gcc -mieee-fp -g -O2
> FORTRAN compiler: g77 -g -O2
> Gnome support: no
Then I run make. It terminates after a few lines as follows:
[ -- some initial lines snipped -- ]
making Rsock.d from Rsock.c
In file included from /usr/include/bits/posix1_lim.h:126,
from /usr/include/limits.h:30,
from
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.h:117,
from
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/syslimits.h:7,
from
/usr/lib/gcc-lib/i386-linux/egcs-2.91.66/include/limits.h:11,
from Rsock.c:28:
/usr/include/bits/local_lim.h:27: linux/limits.h: No such file or
directory
In file included from /usr/include/errno.h:36,
from Rsock.c:32:
/usr/include/bits/errno.h:25: linux/errno.h: No such file or directory
In file included from /usr/include/signal.h:294,
from Rsock.c:156:
/usr/include/bits/sigcontext.h:28: asm/sigcontext.h: No such file or
directory
make[3]: *** [Rsock.d] Error 1
make[3]: Leaving directory `/root/R-0.90.0/src/appl'
make[2]: *** [R] Error 2
make[2]: Leaving directory `/root/R-0.90.0/src/appl'
make[1]: *** [R] Error 1
make[1]: Leaving directory `/root/R-0.90.0/src'
make: *** [R] Error 1
[ -- end -- ]
The files make appears to be complaining about do exist on my system. In each case make seems to find the file (eg, /usr/include/bits/errno.h) but then complains seems to refer to a different directory -- linux/errno.h --- and says `No such file'. If linux/ and asm/ are meant to be directories with these files inside, they don't exist on my system. I've tried several clean installs and get the same result each time.
RPM says I'm using the following C and Fortran packages:
egcs-2.91.66-5
egcs-c++-2.91.66-5
egcs-objc-2.91.66-5
glib-devel-static-1.2.3-2
glibc-devel-static-2.1.1-1
glibc-devel-2.1.1-1
glibc-localedata-2.1.1-1
g77-2.91.66-6
I don't have much experience compiling files of this sort, so I can't interpret the error messages properly. I'd be very grateful for advice on what I'm doing wrong, and how to remedy it.
Thanks,
Kieran Healy
-- Kieran Healy email: kjhealy at princeton.edu
Department of Sociology
Princeton University
Princeton, NJ 08544-1010
A couple of people give advice and then the same person reports:
[R] Success compiling R on Caldera OL 2.3
Hello -
thanks to Prof. Ripley and Peter Dalgaard for their helpful responses. I have now successfully compiled R on my machine. The kernel-headers were not installed on my machine, but there is a package on the Open Linux 2.3 CD. I believe they weren't installed simply because I didn't choose to have all the development tools/libraries added when I installed linux. I didn't realize how soon I'd be compiling things.
2. The missing package that led to my posting to this list. It can be found on the COL install CD and is called linux-kernel-include.rpm.
Thanks again for quickly pointing me in the right direction. I'm looking forward to using R.
Kieran Now, the part that makes it clear that Caldera had to know about those header files is in the advice given. Here's Prof. Ripley:
Prof Brian D Ripley (ripley at stats.ox.ac.uk)
Sat, 11 Dec 1999 07:47:22 +0000 (GMT)...
On Sat, 11 Dec 1999, Kieran Healy wrote:
> I am a first-time R user trying to compile v.0.90.0 under Caldera
> OpenLinux 2.3, on a Dell PII400/128. I've encountered a problem with the
> make file.
Well, not with the make file but with your system. On our RedHat Linux
boxes, both asm/sigcontext.h and linux/limits.h are in the rpm
kernel-headers-*, so I suggest you try installing that. However, again on
our systems, glibc-devel requires kernel-headers. So either Caldera have
got their dependencies wrong (and we have encountered missing files on
Caldera systems before) or you did not allow dependencies to be installed.
Try
rpm -q --requires glibc-devel
to see if kernel-headers is a dependency. I vaguely recall there are ways
to check for any missing required packages on RPM-based systems, but as I
have never had need of them, I can't recall the details. Here's what I glean from this, keeping in mind that they were not missing, just placed elsewhere. Caldera didn't just take Red Hat's distro and redistribute it. It did things *differently*, so when it included errno.h in OpenLinux 2.3, I believe it had to have been deliberate and a knowing choice.
Now, I don't believe SCO has any claim to headers files like errno.h anyway, for many and detailed reasons we've published already, but here's what SCO claimed in its "Dear Unix Licensee" letter of December 19, 2003:
Certain copyrighted application binary interfaces (“ABI Code”) have been copied verbatim from our copyrighted UNIX code base and contributed to Linux for distribution under the General Public License (“GPL”) without proper authorization and without copyright attribution. While some application programming interfaces (“API Code”) have been made available over the years through POSIX and other open standards, the UNIX ABI Code has only been made available under copyright restrictions. AT&T made these binary interfaces available in order to support application development to UNIX operating systems and to assist UNIX licensees in the development process. The UNIX ABIs were never intended or authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.
SCO's letter also dated December 19, 2003 to Linux users [PDF] used similar language and listed headers too.
I think our nugget for today demonstrates holes in this SCO chunk of cheese, but the question of what code SCO was claiming it owned is vital here, because we need to know if it was claiming pre-1995 code, which it doesn't own, or later code it itself wrote. If AT&T made the release, it had to be prior to SCO having any ownership. That's obvious right there, just from the chain of ownership history. And anyway, you can find
AT&T (or more exactly USL) making binary interfaces available in the mid-1990s. We know from the Jay Petersen presentation about SCOsource in 2003 that ELF had not been updated since 1990. Here's slide 9:
So that informs me that when SCO made the above claim to header files, I believe it had to have been talking about pre-1995 files that it turns out, as Utah's Honorable Judge Dale Kimball has ruled, it doesn't own after all. It's way too old for SCO to make any claim to it.
Incidentally, you can find the contents of Caldera's OpenLinux 2.4 here. And you'll notice this entry:
ld.so - 1.9.11 - MRBDH - The Linux dynamic loader ld.so provides the very basic routines to access dynamic ELF libraries for any dynamically linked program.
Here's an explanation of ld.so: ld.so is the dynamic library loader. Each binary using shared
libraries used to have about 3K of start-up code to find and load the
shared libraries. Now that code has been put in a special shared
library, /lib/ld.so, where all binaries can look for it, so that it
wastes less disk space, and can be upgraded more easily. ld.so can be
obtained from http://tsx-11.mit.edu/pub/linux/packages/GCC/ and mirror
sites. The latest version at the time of writing is
ld.so.1.9.5.tar.gz. /lib/ld-linux.so.1 is the same thing for ELF
("What's all this about ELF? ") and comes in the same package as the
a.out loader.
So we don't have to guess about SCO distributing it.
But since SCO are so persistent, and just in case they dream up some off-the-wall claim based on headers from code they do own...
... I thought this nugget might be a useful addition to the large mural Groklaw is painting of SCO's everlovingly endless phony baloney.
|
|
Authored by: Totosplatz on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:24 PM EDT |
Please make links clicky
---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).
All the best to one and all.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- The easy way to make a clicky: Make Link 8.07 - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 06:37 PM EDT
- Widescreen, Firefox and lots of tabs? Show Tabs on the Left with "Tree Style Tab" - Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 06:48 PM EDT
- Microsoft's Decade-old Patent On Tree-view Mode! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 08:36 PM EDT
- Senator Leahy fuses controversial IP bills into big, bad package - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 10:51 PM EDT
- Tea plus Arr equals S - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 11:27 PM EDT
- Another attack on Fair Use? - Authored by: SpaceLifeForm on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 01:31 AM EDT
- What has more holes than Swiss Cheese and an aroma more pungent than Limberger Cheese? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 02:30 AM EDT
- Illiad strikes again! - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 03:05 AM EDT
- This pig does not actually fly..... - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 07:34 AM EDT
- Scrabble's owners sue Scrabulous - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 07:38 AM EDT
|
Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:26 PM EDT |
... is here so PJ can find them.
---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bbaston on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:27 PM EDT |
Please identify the News Pick item - from home page - that you're commenting on.
---
IMBW, IANAL2, IMHO, IAVO
imaybewrong, iamnotalawyertoo, inmyhumbleopinion, iamveryold[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 04:28 PM EDT |
Awww, you're gonna spoil all their fun! ;)
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
It's time to take a look again at the original press release when Novell
completed the sale of UnixWare to Santa Cruz Operation on December 6 1995.
The press release said:
"Under the agreement, Novell receives approximately 6.1 million shares of
SCO common stock, resulting in an ownership position of approximately 17 percent
of the outstanding SCO capital stock. The agreement also calls for Novell to
receive a revenue stream from SCO based on revenue performance of the purchased
UnixWare business. This revenue stream is not to exceed $84 million net present
value, and will end by the year 2002."
Paragraph number 2 said:
"In addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue from existing
licenses for older versions of UNIX System V source code..."
See full press release below.
Now, the key question is which "older versions of UNIX System V source
code" Novell was entitle to receive revenue from"?
There were varios versions of UNIX System V. These versions were released as
follow:
1982/11/22 - Unix System V
1985/01/21 - Unix System V/286
1988/08/22 - Unix System V/386 Release 3.2
1989/11/01 - Unix System V Release 4
1991/10/08 - UNIX System V Release 4 Multi-Processor Version 1
1992/06/16 - UNIX System V Release 4.2
Before the sale of UnixWare to SCO, Novell released UnixWare 2 on January 10
1995. The press release said:
"UnixWare 2 is the next generation of UNIX System V Release 4 (SVR4)
technology, a platform for popular commercial applications that has been
evolving for more than 20 years. This new version is designed for customers
seeking a powerful, cost-effective system for deploying business-critical and
database applications across their enterprises..." [
http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/95/0110_c.htm ]
The first version of Unix System V Release 4 was released on November 1 1989.
When Novell sold UnixWare to SCO, didn't the sale implied certain rights to Unix
System V Release 4 as this version was the base for UnixWare 2?
<Original Press Release>
Novell Completes Sale of UnixWare Business to The Santa Cruz Operation
Orem, Utah -- Dec. 6, 1995 -- Novell, Inc. today completed the sale of its
UnixWare business to The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc. (SCO), finalizing an
agreement first announced in September, 1995. Under the agreement, Novell
receives approximately 6.1 million shares of SCO common stock, resulting in an
ownership position of approximately 17 percent of the outstanding SCO capital
stock. The agreement also calls for Novell to receive a revenue stream from SCO
based on revenue performance of the purchased UnixWare business. This revenue
stream is not to exceed $84 million net present value, and will end by the year
2002.
In addition, Novell will continue to receive revenue from existing licenses for
older versions of UNIX System V source code. Also, Novell will receive royalties
from SCO's licensing of its NetWare networking software, including NetWare
Directory Services (NDS), for use in UnixWare based operating system products.
The transaction positions SCO to consolidate the UNIX System on the Intel
platform. SCO plans to merge the SCO OpenServer Release 5 and SCO UnixWare
product lines to create a standard high-volume UNIX operating system that
contains integrated NetWare networking software. SCO has announced that the
merged product will begin shipping in 1997. SCO has also announced that it will
ship the next release of UnixWare in the first quarter 1996, and that this
UnixWare product will include NetWare networking software to help customers
integrate UNIX Systems with Novell networks.
Novell Contact:
Melanie King
(408) 577-6842
</Original Press Release>
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 05:36 PM EDT |
I've been following Groklaw for years, and am just tickled to see R get a
mention, even in passing. =) It's the statistical package of choice for a wide
swath of statisticians and those-who-need-to-use-statistics. And it's free and
open source and all of that warm fuzzy goodness.
*crawls back into her stat grad student hole*[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 05:40 PM EDT |
I have a Caldera OpenLinux Lite CD from 1997. I received it (and Caldera
OpenDOS) in an unsolicited mailing sometime around that period. At that time I
had never even heard of Linux, let alone knew what to do with it.
I
have tried to install it several times in the past year without success. I have
tried to install it on real hardware and on QEMU without much luck. If anyone
knows how to do this, I wouldn't mind hearing from them. It would be interesting
to see what is on there.
The leaflet with the package says there are three
versions of OpenLinux. OpenLinux Lite (the one I have) says:
- Apache Web
Server.
- FTP server and client.
- X11R6 graphical
environment.
- E-mail server (SMTP) and multiple mail
readers.
- Java development kit.
- Easy installation and device
support.
OpenLinux Base
- Apache Web Server.
- Netscape
Nagivator, licensed for commercial use.
- Powerful desktop
interface.
- Complete development tool kit.
OpenLinux
Standard contains:
- Netscape FastTrack Server for providing a commercial
Web server to your clients.
- Netscape Navigator Gold 3.01 with HTML
editing.
- NetWare NDS client with administration tools.
- Looking
Glass desktop interface.
- Productivity Software: office suite and SQL
database.
Since I have the "Lite" version, I may not have the kernal
headers. I will extract the files from the ISO to see what I might have. Guess
what the license says though?
OpenLinux Lite
License
Nearly all of the components that make up the OpenLinux Lite
product
are distributed under the terms of the GNU General Public License or
similar licenses which permit free and unrestricted redistribution.
They then list the following 3 exceptions:
- 1.Looking
Glass desktop metaphor - Copyright Visix Software, Inc.,
- LISA
installation and administration utility - Copyright
Caldera and Linux Support
Team,
- CRiSP-LiTE(tm) text editor - Copyright Vital, Inc.,
They have a directory on the CD called "col/sources/SRPMS" which
contains 380 times, including linux-2.0.29-1.src.rpm and gcc-2.7.2.1-1.src.rpm.
I'm using a Debian (Ubuntu) system, so I don't think I have anything installed
at the moment to extract RPMs. I suspect that there is a lot of interesting
source in there though.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: bruzie on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 05:55 PM EDT |
My first exposure to Linux was the purchase of "Caldera OpenLinux for
Dummies", written by Jon "maddog" Hall and Nicholas Wells
(credited on the cover as "Former Director of Technical Marketing, Caldera
Systems, Inc.")
Included was Caldera OpenLinux 2.3 and in case they say they still didn't know
it was GPL, at the back of the book is the full GPLv2 license.
The CD itself is no longer in the book, but I know I still have it here because
I made sure I didn't throw it away after the whole sorry saga began.
---
Chris Brewer
"Mr Gandhi, what do you think of Western civilisation?"
"I think it would be a good idea."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: woodcarver on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 06:06 PM EDT |
I have a full set of both Caldera Open Linux 2.2 and 2.3 cd's and manuals and
the header files are present in both versions. These were from 1998 and 1999 I
believe. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 06:23 PM EDT |
Now that the Novell sideshow appears to be finished, subject to any
appeals either side might bring...
This may be misleading. The Novell
case isn't over, and judgment on the
part that's done, when entered, won't be
appealable.
All of Novell's counterclaims have now been disposed of, either
by
summary judgment, trial, or voluntary dismissal without prejudice.
Therefore,
SCO v Novell is no longer stayed in bankruptcy.
However, long
before the bankruptcy, Kimball stayed [139] all arbitrable
claims in the case
pending arbitration. The arbitration itself is stayed in
bankruptcy, because
SuSE has arbitration claims against SCO. Those claims
aren't part of the
litigation.
The Federal Arbitration Act (9 U.S.C. 3) requires all arbitrable
issues to
be decided by arbitration. This is not a matter for judicial
discretion. Kimball
has no choice but to wait for the arbitration.
The
parties stipulated in their Joint Status Report [379] that the following
claims
are subject to arbitration: SCO's Second Claim for Relief (Breach of the
APA
and TLA), to the extent not decided by summary judgment; SCO's Fourth
Claim for
Relief (Copyright infringement in SuSE Linux), in its entirety; SCO's
Fifth
Claim for Relief (Unfair competition), also to the extent not decided by
summary judgment.
As long as those claims are still pending, there won't be
a judgment
appealable as of right. In order for an appeal to go forward, one of
three
things has to happen:
(1) Kimball grants a motion by SCO to
certify the judgments he
has
already entered for interlocutory appeal. Highly
unlikely.
(2) SCO voluntarily dismisses its remaining claims. The fast track
to
appeal.
(3) Novell moves the BK court to lift the stay on arbitration.
The
arbitration takes place, then Kimball enters judgment on the remaining
claims according to what the tribunal decides. The slow track to appeal. If
SCO chooses this track, it will need financing to survive long enough as
debtor in possession for the arbitration and appeal to run their courses
(likely
a year or more.) If SCO doesn't get the financing, it will run out of
cash, or an
independent trustee will be appointed shortly before that
happens.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: sk43 on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 09:25 PM EDT |
The following server has a large collection of updates to the Caldera OpenLinux
1.x and 2.x series.
ftp://ftp.nvg.ntnu.no/pub/mirrors/metalab.unc.edu/distributions/caldera/
I have just begun exploring, but some interesting findings:
Caldera explicitly added Streams to all its kernels, including its own
modifications.
Caldera modified linux/include/sem.h, which is one of the kernel IPC files its
claims as a copyright violation.
Caldera modified the SysVinit code. SysVinit was one of the infringing items
identified in Brent Hatch's Exhibit G [IBM-157-28-G].
Caldera included the iBCS package in its distributions, as was already discussed
here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040130235310123
The iBCS package includes many of the ABI files in the libc_s product. These
files all have timestamps that predate the APA.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Steve Martin on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 09:39 PM EDT |
I think our nugget for today demonstrates holes in this SCO
chunk of cheese, but the question of what code SCO was claiming it owned is
vital here, because we need to know if it was claiming pre-1995 code, which it
doesn't own, or later code it itself wrote.
PJ, if
you're referring to the file errno.h, then we are demonstrably talking
about pre-1995 code. This file is mentioned by name and description in the
O'Reilly book "Using C on the UNIX
System" by Donald A. Curry, which was published in 1985. The copy I have
here is last revised in 1991, and contains the following on page
4:
Every system call returns the value -1 when an error occurs, and
most return 0 on successful completion (unless they are returning somee other
integer value). Further, the external integer errno is set to a number
indicating exactly which error occurred. The "values" of these errors are
defined in the include file errno.h, and may be easily printed out using
the perror library routine ...
So errno.h is definitely part of
pre-APA UNIX, and therefore The SCO Group does not own the copyright to
it.
--- "When I say something, I put my name next to it." -- Isaac
Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, July 26 2008 @ 11:22 PM EDT |
I don't think there was ever any question that SCO (as Caldera) was distributing
things under the GPL. The question was whether they were knowingly distributing
under the GPL the code that they claimed was improperly introduced to Linux. The
packaging structure doesn't speak to this; there's no question that they knew
they were distributing the Linux kernel headers, or that they were aware of how
they were packaging them. The question is whether they'd looked at the contents
of particular files, such as the one that R needed. Presumably, they just
scooped up that directory without looking carefully at it, because nobody
building kernel header packages bothers (at that point) to look at what's in the
files. In particular, nobody looks in those files because it's largely a bunch
of definitions taken from POSIX or SUS or one of the other UNIX standards, and
there's nothing interesting in most of them, by design. Of course, this is also
what it's a big joke that SCO could own the contents of such a file: that
content is the only possible expression of a standardized interface, and no more
copyrightable than the 1-5/8" drywall screw.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 04:59 AM EDT |
Is it just me, or does anyone else out there also think that the concept of
being able to copyright a header file from the standard C library (which is part
of the programming language definition), is just plain daft.
Copyright infringement requires substantial copying, individual names or numbers
cannot be copyrighted, and literal copying for the purposes of making references
(for example citing other works, or for interoperability) is permitted under
copyright law.
Header files are not code. They are basically a list external name references.
Errno.h is part of the standard C library, and defines a set of standard error
numbers required for interoperability with among other things the Unix command
line and Posix applications.
The file is very limited in size and there are limited options for choosing the
different numbers and names, and those names and numbers are required to be the
same for interoperability reasons.
SCO's unique re-interpretation of copyright law is absolutely daft. Allowing
copyright to control the use of header files is a bit like allowing the
individual names linked to telephone numbers to be copyrighted, and asking for
royalties to be paid every time someone writes down any name that appears in a
telephone directory next to the telephone number or enters it into a mobile
phone memory. In short, it is just plain daft, and if permitted it would make
copyright infringers of everyone who did pretty much everything from jotting
down people's phone numbers or writing a letter that contains people's addresses
or phone numbers, to quoting acts and scene numbers in literary discussions of
Shakespeare works, to writing a newspaper article criticising the nutritional
content of Coca Cola and containing the copyrighted word "Coca Cola"
in it (since according to SCO,s unique interpretation of copyright law The Coca
Cola Company would be able to sue you for copyright infringement if you use the
word "Coca Cola" without their permission.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Is copyrighting header files even possible? - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 06:18 AM EDT
- "Header files are not code. " - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 06:22 AM EDT
- Red herring - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 09:13 AM EDT
- Red herring - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 02:08 PM EDT
- Red herring - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 05:18 PM EDT
- Red herring - Authored by: tiger99 on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 05:30 PM EDT
- Red herring - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 07:45 PM EDT
- It is NOT code - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 10:02 PM EDT
- It is NOT code - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 12:35 AM EDT
- It is too code! - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 08:44 AM EDT
- Redder herring... - Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, July 28 2008 @ 08:55 AM EDT
|
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 02:40 PM EDT |
I have gathered in chronological order SCO efforts to provide licenses for
ancient Unix versions.
A press release from 1998/05/12 said "... SCO, the world's leading supplier
of UNIX server systems and owner of the UNIX intellectual property, today
announced..."
Did Novell complain about this licensing effort?
1996/09/06 - SCO Announces Free Unix License at SCO Forum96 (a) - License (b)
Press release quote: "... brought cheers from the Forum96 crowd with the
surprise announcement of a free UNIX license for educational and non-commercial
use to enable the evaluation and understanding of UNIX systems."
1998/03/11 - PDP-11 UNIX Source Licenses (c) - License (d)
1998/05/12 - SCO Provides Low-Cost Source Licenses for 'Ancient' Releases of
Unix (e)
Press release quote: "Continuing to encourage progress and innovation of
the UNIX System, SCO (NASDAQ:SCOC), the world's leading supplier of UNIX server
systems and owner of the UNIX intellectual property, today announced the
availability of special software licenses for 'ancient' versions of the UNIX
operating system."
1998/08/17 - SCO Ships 100,000th Free Unix System License (f)
Press release quote: "For software enthusiasts who like to explore the
history of UNIX Systems via source code, SCO also offers personal-use
source-code licenses for "ancient" versions of the UNIX System,
including the Mini UNIX operating system; the UNIX V6 operating system; the PWB
UNIX operating system; and the UNIX V7 operating system, which also covers
Editions 1-5, and the 32V."
2000/04/18 - "Ancient" UNIX Source Code Available for Free (g) -
License (h)
"Additionally, SCO has simplified its 'Ancient' UNIX program and waived the
$100 processing fee. Anyone will be able to log onto the SCO web site and
download historically preserved UNIX code for educational and non-commercial
use."
2002/01/23 - Liberal license for ancient UNIX sources (i) - License (j)
2002/05/21 - Caldera stopped giving Free License (k)
Sources and URLs
(a) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/96/0906_c.htm
(b) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/96/1014.txt
(c) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/0311_m.htm
(d) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/0310.txt
(e) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/0512_o.htm
(f) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/1990s/98/0817_a.htm
(g) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/2000s/00/0418_c.htm
(h) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/2000s/00/0502_b.htm
(i) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/2000s/02/0123_c.htm
(j) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/acrobat/2000s/020123_caldera.pdf
(k) http://www.krsaborio.net/research/2000s/02/0521_d.htm[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
Authored by: kjhealy on Sunday, July 27 2008 @ 11:46 PM EDT |
Apropos of nothing, I'm the author of that email from 1999. Someone pointed me
at this thread and it's a little weird to see it resurface in this context.
--
Kieran Healy ::
http://www.kieranhealy.org/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|