decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more... 		decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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

You won't find me on Facebook

Donate

Donate Paypal

No Legal Advice

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

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.

What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments

Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Monday, December 14 2009 @ 08:53 AM EST

In SCO's letter to Unix licensees in December of 2003, signed by Ryan Tibbitts, who is still at SCO, one of the files listed as allegedly infringed was this one, on page 2 of the PDF [PDF]:
/include/linux/a.out.h
Another was this one:
include/asm-i386/errno.h
And of course, it was SCO's position that it never released any of its own code under the GPL. However, I was just looking at the source of that very file, linux-include, in the Caldera distribution OpenLinux eServer 2.3, and you'll never guess what I found.

Warning if you are on dialup: graphics ahead.

I find include/linux/a.out.h and include/asm-i386/errno.h as well as the name of a Caldera employee, Torsten Duwe, and the GPL referenced, as well as the credit to Caldera Systems and a mention of calderalabs.com. The CD is copyrighted 2000, and printed on the CD it says that source code for OpenLinux eServer 2.3 was available at www.calderasystems.com/eServer. It's available on the CD as well, happily, since SCO has removed the page listed on the CD, as they have so much that Groklaw published that shows they have been serving up an order of baloney.

So I opened it up from the CD in emacs, linux-kernel-include-2.2.14-1S.i386.rpm, and there's the very a.out.h and errno.h files listed as verboten, as big as life, in Caldera's very own product..

Maybe it's best if I just show you some screenshots of what I saw:

I take it that this means Caldera shipped a modded linux kernel, and they shipped it under the GPL. To the extent that that kernel contained code enabling the loading of ELF or a.out binaries, I would take it that they shipped that code under the GPL. Did you notice elf.h in there? Me too.

Isn't this fun? Funny, too.

Here's what a.out.h is, by the way, if you don't know, taken from documentation for SCO OpenServer in 2003:

a.out(FP) is not part of any currently supported standard; it is an extension of AT&T System V provided by The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
So, this would be code that SCO Group would claim as Santa Cruz's successor in interest. Of course, they would stress its proprietary nature in 2003. By then, they were battening down the hatches and turning the ship around as fast as they could. But not fast enough to remove the past. And it was released by Caldera prior to that stern description.

Here's why the 2003 letter from Tibbitts said it was improper to use the files on the list in Linux:

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. Any part of any Linux file that includes the copyrighted binary interface code must be removed. Files in Linux version 2.4.21 and other versions that incorporate the copyrighted binary interfaces include:
Then came the list, but as you can see from the screenshots, they had long before 2003 and long before Linux 2.4.21 shipped out those files, aout.h and errno.h and elf.h, in their distribution of OpenLinux, as you can see with your own eyes, under the GPL. I think SCO needs to sue itself and leave the rest of us alone.

Now, I happened upon these, but I'll bet if any of you have Caldera's products, or OpenServer, for that matter, if you carefully checked bit by bit, you'll find more, especially if you are programmers, because you'll notice things I surely would not. Emacs shows more than if you open it in something like KWrite, by the way. I love emacs.

Happy hunting.

  


Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL | 364 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Ha Ha Ha!!
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 09:00 AM EST
.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off Topic Here
Authored by: GuyllFyre on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 09:32 AM EST
Please keep your off-topic threads here.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks here
Authored by: GuyllFyre on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 09:33 AM EST
Please post your News Picks threads here.
Use HTML and clickable links whenever possible.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Corrections Here
Authored by: GuyllFyre on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 09:34 AM EST
Please put any corrections (if needed) threads here.
Thank you.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Emacs
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 09:59 AM EST

I love emacs too, my editor of choice.

But for things like this, I usually employ strings(1).
From your command-line, see 'man strings', or 'strings --help'
'strings -n 2 FILE | less' I use a lot...

bjd

[ Reply to This | # ]

Looking inside .rpm files
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 10:05 AM EST
Even if you don't use an RPM-based system you can do better than open an RPM
file with Emacs. For example, something like this:

rpm2cpio WHATEVER.rpm | cpio -i * -

One of the files you get is then probably a .tar.gz file which you can unpack
with tar xzf WHATEVER.tar.gz.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: inode_buddha on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 10:07 AM EST
I just got done reading Sams Publishing "Teach Yourself C in 21 Days"
and you'd be surprised at how familiar the description of errno.h...

---
-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 | # ]

Corporations legally a person?
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 10:08 AM EST
Why can't Caldera plead insanity or having Alzheimer's disease as a defense?
Maybe "I attacked Linux because little voices in the back of my Articles of
Incorporation told me to!".

[ Reply to This | # ]

The full responsibility for this debacle is shifting...
Authored by: Totosplatz on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 12:13 PM EST
As time goes on and due diligence is carried out it becomes clearer and clearer
that Darl and Company are no longer solely responsible - responsibility is
shifting decisively onto the shoulders of the new management.

This entire case is one big lie and Darl is now leaving the barn - off to the
Skyline, Scott Free.

---
Greetings from Zhuhai, Guangdong, China; or Portland, Oregon, USA (location
varies).

All the best to one and all.

[ Reply to This | # ]

UNIX 7
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 12:38 PM EST
Caldera Systems released versions of UNIX up to V7 under a free software
license. Then there was the book Lions' Commentary on UNIX. Both of these may
have some influence on certain header files that SCO had issues with in court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 01:08 PM EST
Ryan T. was in Management meetings at Lineo where the development of Linux
Kernel code was discussed, I was there for some of them.

He has direct knowledge of what Caldera, a sister Canopy Company put into the
kernel or he should know.

I'm disappointed in Ryan T., at the time, I thought he was honorable...
I seem to make that mistake a lot.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: eschasi on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 02:36 PM EST
I have a legal/copyright issue here that seems relevant.

Let's say I get some copywritten code from somewhere, slap a GPL on it, and
publish. Since I was not the copyright owner, I didn't actually have the right
to do that. When the copyright owner notices, can they pull the code back, ie,
take the GPL back off? If so, does that mean that 3rd parties who've used the
GPLed code must stop using it? I assume the answer to both is "yes,"
but would love to confirm that.

Why it's relevant: if SCO never got the copyrights from Novell, then it doesn't
matter if they later published the code under the GPL. That GPL copyright is
invalid. Thus if Novell was crazy enough to pull a SCO-style lawsuit, they'd
have much better legal ground to claim the code isn't validly GPLed. Is Novell
that crazy? Probably not. If Novell folded and/or got bought by a patent troll
in the next couple of years? The defense that SCO GPLed the code goes away.

Why it's a bit of a no-op with respect to SCO: if SCO doesn't have the
copyrights, their suit is pretty much null and void as regards their claim the
Linux uses that code. If they do have the copyright, the fact that they slapped
a GPL on it makes it pretty much null and void w/r/t Linux using that code.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: Alan(UK) on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 05:35 PM EST
SCO put out two letters on December 19 2003. One to its own customers Dear Unix Licensee and the other to Dear Linux User. The two are basically the same. The following paragraph is common to both and follows the list of files.

The code identified above was also part of a settlement agreement between the University of California at Berkeley and Berkeley Systems Development, Inc. (collectively “BSDI”) and UNIX Systems Laboratories, Inc. regarding alleged violations by BSDI of USL's rights in UNIX technology. The settlement agreement between USL and BSDI addressed conditions upon which BSDI could continue to distribute its version of UNIX, BSD Lite 4.4, or any successor versions, including certain “UNIX Derived Files” which include the ABI Code. A complete listing of the UNIX Derived Files is attached. The ABI Code identified above is part of the UNIX Derived Files and, as such, must carry USL / SCO copyright notices and may not be used in any GPL distribution, inasmuch as the affirmative consent of the copyright holder has not been obtained, and will not be obtained, for such a distribution under the GPL.

If Linus Torvalds copied the files from UNIX before the USL/BSDI agreement then why mention the agreement at all? The agreement is between the parties concerned and does not involve Linus and certainly not retrospectively. If someone copied the files from UNIX into LINUX after the date of the settlement, then the terms of the settlement are indeed relevant. The settlement allows BSDI to distribute the files subject to including a copyright notice in a prescribed form. The GPL would seem to satisfy all the conditions required for distribution.

Why does SCO use a document that allows the files to be copied, to prove that they should not be copied? But then it claims to be the copyright holder on the basis of a document that says that the copyrights were not transferred.

The USL copyright notice does not even claim exclusive rights to any file in its entirety. Unless an entire file has been copied, SCO has no way of proving that any particular part is covered by USL copyright.

Finally, if someone did copy the files from BSDI, why remove the copyright notices? Leaving them in is a requirement of the GPL.

---
Microsoft is nailing up its own coffin from the inside.

[ Reply to This | # ]

This is original code from Linus
Authored by: PolR on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 10:56 PM EST
I have this nagging memory that at least errno.h didn't come from Unix but was written by Linus Torvalds himself. The after a little googling I have found:

Linus Torvalds Refutes SCO Copyright Claims
Re: SCO's infringing files list
Linus Torvalds on SCO's latest claims

So to win their point SCO will have to prove they own the copyright on code Linus will testify he wrote himself. Tough luck, SCO doesn't even have their chain of ownership in order.

Note the date in the article. December 2003. SCO knew since then that Linus wrote the files.

Note also the role of standards in these files. Any similarity between Linux and Unix is dictated by the standards and this is not a copyrightable element.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: webster on Monday, December 14 2009 @ 11:24 PM EST

The GPL arguments appear in IBM's Motions for Summary Judgment and in their Oppositions to SCO's Motions for Summary Judgment. One can get around in these here, a little table made for Groklaw.

These arguments are based on indisputable facts, like SCO is in OpenLinux and distributed with the GPL. These motions are pending. They are waiting for SCO v Novell to finish.

Unfortunately, some of the discussion is redacted. What they haven't redacted, PJ has shown then and now, Bit by Bit, that it is all worthless. They wish they could redact all to keep her witty hands off it.


[ Reply to This | # ]

Abstraction-filtration-comparison test
Authored by: mattflaschen on Tuesday, December 15 2009 @ 12:14 AM EST
Even if SCO hadn't knowingly distributed these files under the GPL, isn't there
a good chance these files would be non-protectable elements under the AFC test?
By definition, header files are supposed to have limited scope for variations in
implementation. And these header files were constrained by compatibility
concerns.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Answering SCO Bit by Bit: a.out.h, errno.h and the GPL
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, December 15 2009 @ 02:20 AM EST
Groklaw is an ocean and many of the points made here have been said before, including this one from Li nux Today October 17, 2000 :

One will be based on the Linux kernel and will include two so-called personalities that run OpenServer and Linux applications, while the other will be based on the UnixWare kernel and run Linux and UnixWare applications.

But Donakey claimed that only one of the kernels would remain within the next 18 months.

"It will not be a two kernel situation into the future. As the Linux kernel develops and the Unix kernel is open sourced, the solution will be whichever works the best. It will be the survival of the fittest. People are not doing a lot of development on the Unix kernel these days because people see Linux as exciting and the future," he said.

He added that Drew Spencer, Caldera's chief technology officer, and the supplier's legal department were now looking at the ramifications of licensing the Unix kernel and UnixWare personality under a GNU General Public Licence - one of several ways to license open source software.


Of course Caldera/SCO were aware of the "ramifications" of GPL. They had begun analyze it in 2000!




---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • No, no, no... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 15 2009 @ 01:54 PM EST
Another contribution by Caldera under GPL
Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, December 15 2009 @ 03:13 AM EST
Here is another contribution by Caldera under GPL:
Begin3
Title: Wrapper mechanism for pty/utmp handling
Version: 1.0
Entered-date: 29SEP98
Description: This program contains a setuid wrapper for allocating
a pty pair and creating the appropriate utmp record
for it, along with library functions to use the
wrapper. It is intended to help avoid the use of setuid
facilities on xterm-like programs.
Keywords: xterm security utmp pty session
Author: utmp and termio code by various,
wrapper by okir@caldera.de (Olaf Kirch)
Maintained-by: okir@caldera.de (Olaf Kirch)
Primary-site: linux.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de /pub/linux/people/okir
10kB ptsession-1.0.tar.gz
Platform: currently linux only.
Copying-policy: GPL
End
From http://www.tux.org/pub/net/olaf-kirch/dontuse/ptsession.lsm

With this contribution in 1998 by Olaf Kirch, Caldera's analysis of the GPL in 2000 (here ), and the contributions by Torsten Duwe listed by PJ, it is fully evident to anyone that Caldera/SCO knew what they were doing, releasing code under GPL. And, in this case it was "Linux only"!



---
______
IMANAL


.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Maybe I'm missing something
Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, December 15 2009 @ 06:19 PM EST

The SCO Group seems to be making a big stink about a.out.h, which is (if I understand correctly) the header file for the a.out file format. But the a.out format way, way predates System V, and in fact was a part of UNIX as early as V2. (See UNIX Programmer's Manual, Second Edition, June 12 1971, PDF page 215.) And has been recently noted here, Caldera themselves granted an open-source license to all the "ancient UNIX" source code, which by my reckoning would have included V2, including the a.out format.

So what am I missing?

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

[ Reply to This | # ]

How to use RPM:
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 16 2009 @ 04:58 AM EST
It would probably be easier to use RPM and then grep; to get the real contents.
Ultimately an RPM is a few headers and a cpio archive AFAIR. Something like:

mkdir /tmp/foo
sudo rpm --root=/tmp/foo -ivh --noscripts --notriggers --nodeps --force
other-distro-rpm.rpm

may work better.

[ Reply to This | # ]
Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details ) 		Site layout based on Woodlands theme by Bryan Bell.
Groklaw logo by John Crowley.
News Picks logo by Ted Thompson.
Powered By GeekLog
Created this page in 0.06 seconds