|
|
| Answering SCO Bit by Bit - Streams and more GPL'd header files in Caldera OpenLinux 2.2 |
 |
|
Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:09 AM EST
|
A reader sends us some more screenshots of Caldera, now SCO Group, distributing header files under the GPL. This time, it's from OpenLinux 2.2-4, dated from 1999.
Let's start with the CDs, so you know where the rest are coming from:
Here are the include/asm-i386 header files, and you can see elf.h, a.out.h, errno.h, ipc.h, all of which SCO claims [PDF] it owns and has never authorized to be used in Linux or under the GPL:
And here's a look inside elf.h, and you might note the reference to SVR4/i386 ABI and dynamic linking:
And streams, another thing SCO is suing about [for anyone new to this, here's more info on Streams, where you will find that SCO said SCO's expert, Thomas Cargill's report found the following: "For example, the Cargill report alleges that IBM has misused the 'totality of the Streams framework', drawing in every line in over 150 new files...." but here it is under the GPL, put there by SCO, as it looks to me]:
And finally, the README file which says that OpenLinux is a Caldera Systems-maintained distribution of Linux, starting with a standard kernel and adding "other unique features":
Is this not utterly ridiculous?
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Steven W on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:23 AM EST |
| . [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steven W on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:24 AM EST |
| You know the deal. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Chinese web pirates steal design - Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:27 AM EST
- Copyrights question - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:49 AM EST
- Firefox personas "Linux Christmas" created by MaDonna - Authored by: SilverWave on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 09:10 AM EST
- Nobel (invention of CCD) disputed by ex-colleagues - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 10:12 AM EST
- Seasons Greetings - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:07 PM EST
- Seasons Greetings - Authored by: Gringo on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:56 PM EST
- Er.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 03:28 PM EST
- Er.. - Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 23 2009 @ 05:19 PM EST
- I must need new glasses. - Authored by: nerd6 on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:11 PM EST
- Microsoft loses Word patent appeal - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 01:50 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Steven W on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:25 AM EST |
| Yada, yada. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steven W on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:31 AM EST |
| Maybe links to be kind to dial-up users. Could upload them to
ImageShack:
http://imageshack.us/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 04:34 AM EST |
Am I right to understand that they didn't just retroactive-accidentally
distribute something as one part of the Linux kernel, they actually
retroactive-accidentally distributed at least one of the things they are suing
over as a separate patch to the Linux kernel?
\Cyp[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steven W on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 05:14 AM EST |
I think the new folks at SCO needs to understand what that project was,
Caldera's role in it and Santa Cruz's role in it.
http://www.telly.org/86open/
Surely, someone at both organizations knew what Linux ELF was made of and,
obviously, were encouraging a "standard binary executable".[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: rsmith on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 06:15 AM EST |
... of the the
87 lamest moments in tech, 2000-2009. And well deserved.
:-)
"SCO doesn’t end up getting much out of the affair except
for the undying enmity of Linux geeks everywhere."
That does
sum it up quite nicely, doesn't it? ---
Intellectual Property is an
oxymoron. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
- nah - Authored by: designerfx on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 10:12 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 06:16 AM EST |
| I bought it on Ebay as a curiosity, and the box is still sealed. I think it is
called Caldera Linux Desktop, in a green box. As soon as the snow permits, I
will fetch it and have a look. I rather suspect it will be quite
similar. Unfortunately it is 20 miles away, and mostly due to idiot drivers,
the roads are impassable for now. It is truly remarkable how the South of
England can't cope with an amount of snow which would be regarded as relatively
minor elsewhere. Along with several others I was trapped at work for quite some
time yesterday evening as the local roads were gridlocked. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 06:48 AM EST |
| While looking out the window at the snow, it occurred to me that the family of
Caldera Linux products came from somewhere. I doubt that they did all the
development of the distro themselves. They would have built upon previous work
by others, which is precisely what the GPL encourages, for reasons of
efficiency. So why did they not sue the preceding distro (Slackware, perhaps?)
for illegally using the allegedly infringing files? Because they did not do that
in a timely manner, could they be precluded from suing anyone for the same thing
now? I probably don't still have my copies of ancient distros like Yggdrasil
and early versions of Slackware, but someone probably will, and it may be
interesting to have a look at the relevant files, such as errno.h, because it
seems likely that Caldera got the major part of these files from elsewhere, and
if none of the upstream developers had access to Unix source it might show that
the files were simply created to meet the POSIX spec, and not by Caldera. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 06:53 AM EST |
I'll post a few bits in reply to this mail so that it doesn't become one
enormous post. And so I can add stuff as I find it...
Vic.
---
http://solectronics.co.uk
Solving problems with Free Software[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Metadata for binutils - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 06:55 AM EST
- Metadata for linux-kernel-include - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:13 AM EST
- asm-i386/errno.h from linux-kernel-include - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:16 AM EST
- Metadata from libc-devel - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:19 AM EST
- elf.h from libc-devel - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:24 AM EST
- Anyone want the full ELF HOWTO from that CD? - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:32 AM EST
- Metadada from linux-source-common - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:45 AM EST
- A small excert from the file list of linux-source-common - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:49 AM EST
- I forgot a.out.h (also from libc-devel) - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 08:04 AM EST
- Translation for lawyers: Caldera put it all there - Authored by: PolR on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 08:33 AM EST
- Metadata for libc - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:13 PM EST
- Contenrs of libc package - libc.so and libm.so - Authored by: Vic on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 12:17 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Wol on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:03 AM EST |
I know SCOG can't claim this as a defense, but if somebody else puts your code
in a GPL project I think I've twigged the legal niceties :-)
If you spot it, you obviously have to stop distribution immediately, to stop
your customers getting a licence from *you*.
But, the "original licensor" wording, imho, means that until you are
AWARE of it, the "licence to use" comes from the person who put the
code in. If they didn't have any right to do so ... well ... they're wide open
to damages.
But I think, if you *stopped* distributing *immediately* you realise there's a
problem, you can argue with a high chance of success that *you* *never* licenced
it (it was "the other guy") and you can ...try... to get the code
pulled.
Cheers,
Wol[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 07:28 AM EST |
This seems interesting, at least for digging up names and whatnot...you can
browse info, including credits, on all of the kernel releases from 1.0 -
2.6.32.
http://www.linuxhq.com/kernel/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 08:41 AM EST |
... when you can have a Caldera OpenLinux for your very own. The following site
(slow):
ftp://ftp.nvg.ntnu.no/pub/mirrors/metalab.unc.edu/distributions/caldera/
contains complete installation .iso images of Caldera eDesktop (OpenLinux 2.4)
and eServer (OpenLinux 2.3)
Under the updates directory, it also contains a partial set of source RPMS for
many versions of OpenLinux, including 1.0, 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 2.2, 2.3, and eDesktop
and eServer.
I have eDesktop installed on a laptop, complete with the "streams.o"
module. Still having a bit of trouble getting X to work - any advice?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 10:29 AM EST |
Ok, I'm sorry, but this one really is rediculous. This redistribution occured
two years before Caldera even purchased Santa Cruz's unix business. Which means
that even if errno.h and a-out.h are infringing, they couldn't possibly have
even known it in 1999 because they hadn't purchased the rights to it yet.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Yossarian on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 11:40 AM EST |
IMO SCO legal argument is as follows:
1) GPL is unconstitutional.
2) The courts are not in the business of enforcing illegal
contracts, so SCO does not have to respect GPL.
A good line of defense is to claim that "constitutional" is
a question of law and therefore judges, not juries, should
decide this question. (I suspect that a couple of good
lawyers, working for free software, will submit "friend of
the court" letters with pretty good legal arguments.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 01:47 PM EST |
Here is an old Groklaw post which
links to an event where Darl McBride promoted SCO open source products in 2002,
the year before suing IBM.
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: IMANAL_TOO on Tuesday, December 22 2009 @ 02:10 PM EST |
SCO, the official sponsor of GPL software - KDE!
From http://www.kdev
elop.org/index.html?filename=sponsors.html
Sponsors of
the KDevelop Project
SCO - The Santa Cruz Operation (SCO) has
sponsored KDevelop-Developer Ralf Nolden a new PIII/600 machine (512 MB RAM, 2x
15GB HDD) for programming on KDevelop and helping to make KDE 2.0 and KDevelop
available on SCO´s UnixWare7 Operating System.
Siemens Germany,
supports us with sponsoring Ingo Zevenbergen to write a new C/C++ reference for
the upcoming KDevelop 2.0. The reference will be written in docbook style and
integrate seamlessly into KDevelop and fully
KDevelop-copyrighted.
Linuxports Linuxports,sells a printed
version of the KDevelop manuals. Up to 40% of the gross profits go back to the
KDevelop project to help continue development.
Cuxhafen
Ferienwohnungen cuxreise, donated 500 euros.
www.kdevelop.org
Domain Name (June 1999-June 2000)
Sorry for the
poor formatting.
But, the gem is that SCO sponsored a GPL software
project, which wasn't even inhouse.
How, could they possibly blame IBM
for helping Linux?
---
______
IMANAL
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, December 23 2009 @ 07:03 AM EST |
Type the following into google;
skunkware more sco propaganda
Pick the first link... this dates back to 1999, (archived) emails that expose
SCO for what they are. Emails also talk about all the people involved with
skunkware!!!!!!!!!!
GQ[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
