| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Easier way to get a licenseEasier way to get a licensePosted Jul 21, 2003 16:57 UTC (Mon) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483)Parent article: SCO offers UnixWare licenses for Linux
Just download ftp://ftp.sco.com//pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm Now you have linux under a general public license, from the SCO Group.
(Log in to post comments)
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 18:51 UTC (Mon) by lyda (guest, #7429) [Link] i just did that. i post the following log:kevin@owsla( 7:37)% rpm --checksig -v linux-2.4.13-21D.src.rpm
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:01 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Well, let's think about this another way: sco says people have been infringing since 2001, and their kernel srpm is 2.4.13, which is from Oct. 2001. If that's the last version they say is legal, then let's have a look at the changelog for 2.4.14:final: pre8: pre6: pre5: pre4: pre3: pre2: pre1:
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 19:03 UTC (Mon) by KaiRo (subscriber, #1987) [Link] From this list of committers, who's working for IBM?
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:15 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link] If that's the last version they say is legalGo back and reread. They said no such thing.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 20:55 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] I know they didn't say it explicitly--it's a synthesis: (a) They're still distributing 2.4.13 under GPL, (b) They say that people have been infringing since 2001, therefore, 2.4.13 seems to be the last version they aren't complaining about. They are very foggy in the extreme about their understanding of "Linux" in the first place--they can't seem to figure out the difference between the kernel and the aggregate collection of software in general--so the synthesis seemed as logical as anything else I can think of related to this psychotic case...
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 23, 2003 19:49 UTC (Wed) by cpm (guest, #3554) [Link] Right, and they never do.That sorta sits at the core of the whole thing, doesn't it? Occam's razor applies here.
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 21, 2003 21:16 UTC (Mon) by Kef (guest, #13101) [Link] It is gone from SCO's site now... How come? :c)
Easier way to get a license Posted Jul 22, 2003 0:16 UTC (Tue) by dark (✭ supporter ✭, #8483) [Link] Hmm, it wasn't gone when I looked again just now :) Maybe you're not set up right for FTP urls? If you're firewalled you need to use passive ftp.
FSF now has "Legal Standing" Posted Jul 22, 2003 3:03 UTC (Tue) by freeio (guest, #9622) [Link] ftp.sco.com is an interesting site. While downloading the above, I took a look around with gftp and found that the S390 linux source is found here on sco's site.ftp.sco.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Workstation/CSSA-2003-020.0/RPMS Why does that matter? Well, the S390 linux is the only linux version for which FSF owns the overall copyright. IBM donated that to FSF. SCO is non-compliant with GPL, and is distributing code for which FSF specifically owns the overall copyright. Thus FSF has "legal standing" for copyright claims, since under the circumstances, sco is now distributing FSF code without a license. Remember, the GPL is the only license anyone has to distribute linux. Since sco is flagrantly violating the GPL, they have forfeitted their GPL license to release linux at all. They are thus infringing copyrighted material belonging to the Free Software Foundation.
|
|
||||||||||||