Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com) [LWN.net]

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 25, 2003 22:31 UTC (Fri) by newren (subscriber, #5160) [Link]

After continually hearing various claims from people that SCO was still distributing linux-2.4 under the GPL and reading in a number of locations that SCO had stopped distributing it, it was nice to be able to find out which side was right and have proof for myself. Thanks for providing the link. I downloaded it, and verified that all the information you gave was accurate. I especially find it interesting that the build date is May 3, 2003. SCO isn't just still distributing it--they're still compiling and packaging it as well.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 25, 2003 23:15 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

Indeed. It's a fact that SCO are STILL, RIGHT NOW, TODAY, knowingly distributing the kernel via FTP, so the "pregnant cow" precedent doesn't apply.

Why hasn't more been made of this in the media? Have we missed something here? It seems patently obvious to me that SCO's claim to have stopped distributing Linux on May 14 is simply false.

A PLEA TO LINUS TORVALDS:

Linus (and all other Linux contributors): Please don't let this company illegally misappropriate your copyright work, against the terms of the license under which you chose to distribute your work. Take the appropriate legal action against them. Through this new licensing scheme of theirs, they intend to profit from your hard work. You have diligently produced millions of lines of code that is rightfully your intellectual property, and protected by copyright law in the US and most other countries. You have granted everyone (including SCO) a license to use, modify and redistribute your work under very specific conditions. Please act to ensure your rights are not violated.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 0:11 UTC (Sat) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link]

The kernel SCO distributes doesn't contain the code SCO claims to own. JFS is not there. RCU is not there. NUMA is not there. What's the point in posting this link over and over again? It proves nothing.

And what's the point in checking that it's indeed version 2.4.13? It's an old kernel. If you run any recent distribution (except maybe tomsrtbt), you are using a more recent kernel, althouth you may not be using SCO code.

But if you are using Linux 2.6.0-test1, you are using RCU for sure. It's used in the inode cache. You cannot compile the kernel without it.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 1:22 UTC (Sat) by redtape (guest, #552) [Link]

Hmmm, I thought that SCO claimed that _all_ 2.4 kernels were in violation...

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 4:07 UTC (Sat) by piman (subscriber, #8957) [Link]

SCO has yet to be clear (publically, at least) about what kernel contains the code that is supossedly owned by them. Certainly if it's the "hundreds of files" that they are claiming now, I doubt it sprung up between 2.4.13 and 2.4.20, and 2.4.13 is in the clear. If it's the half a dozen files that those who have seen the NDA mention, it's possible it came into being entirely in that timeframe.

Of course, this all assumes that SCO has some kind of plan at all.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 4:50 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Downloaded today

See: ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm

command "rpm -qi -p kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm" results in:

Name : kernel-source
Version : 2.4.19.SuSE
Release : 152
Install Date: (not installed)
Group : Development/System
Size : 37756367
Relocations: (not relocateable)
Vendor: UnitedLinux LLC
Build Date: Fri 07 Feb 2003 08:34:55 AM EST
Build Host: Zert184.suse.de
Source RPM: (none)
License: GPL
Signature : DSA/SHA1, Fri 07 Feb 2003 08:49:43 AM EST,
Key ID a84edae89c800aca
Packager : http://www.unitedlinux.com/feedback
Summary : The source code for the Linux kernel.
Description :
The kernel-source package contains the source code files for the Linux kernel. These source files are needed to build most C programs, since they depend on the constants defined in the source code. The source files can also be used to build a custom kernel that is better tuned to your particular hardware.

The SCO RPMs for the 2.4.19 kernels do not contain the generic 2.4.19 GPL kernel source code (linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2). These RPMs contain the SCO GPL patches (some are which RCU patches to the kernel) and "specfiles" to create the SCO 2.4.19 GPL kernels from the generic 2.4.19 kernel source code. The reason the SCO RPMs do not contain the generic 2.4.19 GPL kernel source code (linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2) can be found in an email from a UnitedLinux developer at:

http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=104218778023663&w=4

The generic 2.4.19 GPL kernel source code (linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2) can be found at: ftp://ftp.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/v2.4/linux-2.4.19.tar.bz2

Copy this file to the RPM source directory before building the SCO 2.4.19 GPL kernels.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 5:07 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

I probly should mension that you need one of these as well:

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/k_athlon-2.4.19-238.src.rpm

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/k_deflt-2.4.19-274.src.rpm

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/k_psmp-2.4.19-239.src.rpm

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/k_smp-2.4.19-257.src.rpm

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 14:20 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

BTW downloading and building a SCO GPL 2.4.19 kernel is an excellent way to protect you from future future SCO litigation. I would recommend this to any company who has legal concerns. However, IANAL

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 15:59 UTC (Sat) by dwalters (subscriber, #4207) [Link]

I agree. Section 6 of the GPL is very clear about this:

"Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein."

IANAL either, but this wording seems very compelling, clear an unambiguous to me, and probably a judge as well.

Start downloading, everyone!

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 16:49 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

I think it would be wise to have someone like the FSF upload it as well an provide links to the community.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 27, 2003 19:39 UTC (Sun) by bastiaan (subscriber, #5170) [Link]

Section 6 does NOT save you here: it specifically states that the recipient automatically receives a license from the ORIGINAL LICENSOR. In this case The SCO Group is merely a redistributor of the code. Funny enough the "original licensor" here is IBM, since IBM allegedly released the offending code under the GPL.
Of course the fact that TSG still distributes the supposedly infringing code should severly damage TSG's chance to recover 'damages' from IBM.

IANAL either. (but have learned to put disclaimers in my messages).

Cheers,

Bastiaan

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 1:18 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

If it's SCO's code, as they maintain, then they are the original licensor.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 1:34 UTC (Mon) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Another way to put this is if they aren't the original licensor then how can they claim that they are the only ones who can license it. They do provide the code under a GPL license.

The fact is that "original licensor" is not defined in the GPL.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 21:43 UTC (Mon) by bastiaan (subscriber, #5170) [Link]

TSG claims they are the copyright holder, and also that they haven't given anyone a license to sublicense the source code. In other words that they are 'the only ones who can license it'. Secondly they claim that they haven't licensed the code under the GPL themselves.
Logically, in the context of the GPL, they are not the "original licensor". If you consider the following time line it should be clearer:

1) party A writes some code X.
2) party A licenses X to party B under NDA.
3) party B publishes X under the GPL.
4) party C incorporates X in GPLed project Y (and publishes it).
5) party D downloads Y (including X) from C's ftp server.
6) party A redistributes Y (including X).
7) party E downloads Y (including X) from A's ftp server.

At 5) party A has not been involved with a GPL'ed X at all and therefore hasn't any obligation imposed by the GPL: it does not have to "automatically give a license" to the recipient D. Ergo it cannot be the "original distributor" at 5).
Now, since there can only be one "original licensor" both D and E must have gotten their license from the same party (via GPL section 6).
Conclusion: party A can still maintain they have not given you a GPL license even if they continue to distribute C.

Of course A=TSG*, B=IBM, C=Linus, X='the alleged infringing code', Y=Linux and D and E are innocent bystanders.

IMHO (and IANAL still), this line of reasoning may work in their case against IBM but destroys any case against Linux users, because it implies their accpetance that X is GPLed now.

Cheers,

Bastiaan

* yes, I'know TSG didn't write the code itself, but that's immaterial to the discussion.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 0:11 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Although that's what they claim that's not what happened. If you bother to look at the facts which are well documented SCO has materially contributed to and derived benefits from the code in question under a GPL license.

I understand your (their) argument. But it is just factually wrong. That was the point of my first post.

Again IANAL

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 0:42 UTC (Tue) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Whoops. I didn't get to your last sentence. I do agree that they may have a case against IBM.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 15:37 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

I agree. Section 6 of the GPL is very clear about this:

IANAL either, but this wording seems very compelling, clear an unambiguous to me, and probably a judge as well.

Good point, however I would like to quote higher law of the land (United States that is).

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. "
(quoted verbatim from http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Amend.html).

To this blatant thou shalt not aimed at the government we shall of course add the following article... http://www.uh.edu/~dbarclay/rm/brady.htm
A distinct infringement upon my rights as laid forth by the second ammendment of the Constitution of The United States of America.

Of course IANAL either, (thank GOD for that!). The frightening facts of American Jurist Prudence are as follows.
We live in a day and age when a good liar, uh Laywer can get O.J. Simpson off the hook using Jury Nullification, the former President of The United States is let off the hook along party lines while dancing around the truth by debating what the meaning of "is" is. Runaway juries award elderly women millions of dollars for being surprised when they clumsily burn themselves with hot coffee from a well known fast food chain. (and here all this time I thought coffee was supposed to be hot. Silly me.). And every cause that cannot seem to get its agenda through the legislative process is going through a pervesion of the legal system. (I dare ANYBODY to show me in the text of the Constitution of the United States where the alleged Separation of Church and State eixists, and just how is it that abortion is constitutionally protected freedom from unreasonable search and seizure but growing a basement full of dope isn't.). With the state of insanity that embarrases the United States as the Judiciary, it would not surprise me if SCO won this thing. It would utterly disgust me, but not surprise me...

Hmmm. Awfully early in the week for me to get ticked off. I guess my weekend was too short.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 15:47 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

<offtopic>IANAL, but I believe the standard reply to your challenge about the church/state separation issue would be that the subsequent court decisions "interpret" the Constitution by creating legal precedent, and thereby sort of change its current meaning. Not exactly the way the people who wrote it probably intended, but that's the state of the union... :-( In addition, it may not be explicit in the Constitution, but the leaders of the Revolution very plainly indicated in their other writings that they did not want a state church...they'd had too much experience with such a situation back in the countries they came from. Their point, however, was not to make a churchless state--where discouraging religion entirely was the rule--but to make the playing field level so no one particular group was persecuted as happened all the time to minority groups in countries with the aforementioned state churches.</offtopic>

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 18:50 UTC (Mon) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link]

I couldn't agree to a greater extent. The issue isn't really OT though. It is the interperatation of the intent of the framers and legislators that has so horribly steered our legal system into the current state of perversion that we suffer through. My point was not that I advocate or oppose a church / state union, but rather that the intent and word of the framers and legislators have been twisted into a horrible thing by societal predators wearing suits. I make no secret of my standing on issues of faith, and where I believe the state should be in relation to the church. The first ammendment, guarantees freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM. And last time I checked, Paganism and Atheism were both considered forms of Religion. (Much of modern environmental thought is barely disguised Pagan belief).

What I am advocating here, and pretty much elsewhere is a truly impartial judiciary that will look at the evidence, and weigh it against the law, from the Constitution on down, and render a ruling based on the facts. I have no faith that can happen in our current climate.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 28, 2003 19:46 UTC (Mon) by mgrello (guest, #13433) [Link]

Gee, you're ticked off! Well, I'm really tired of settling down for a non-political discussion of Linux and having some conservative hi-jack the conversation for their own purposes. We weren't discussing well regulated militias, former Presidents using 11 words to lie about oral sex (while ignoring current Presidents using 16 words to perpertrate a lie that, so far, has resulted in 235 of our children and friends and neighbors being killed in action), OJ Simpson, or having religion shoved down our throats.

Now I believe you should be able to own a gun, pray where you like, and I also think the ex-President acted in extremely bad taste in his sex life, and I think OJ got away with murder, but we came here to talk about Linux.

But, be honest, you knew that!

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 1:17 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

...while ignoring current Presidents using 16 words to perpertrate a lie that, so far, has resulted in 235 of our children and friends and neighbors being killed in action [snip]

Hey, watch where you point that sentence, buddy -- it's loaded! ;-)

...or having religion shoved down our throats.

Where did that come from?

I have noticed quite often that if a liberal proposes, for example, that there ought to be more homosexual public school teachers, this is labeled "fair", "equal opportunity", or "tolerant", but if a conservative proposes that there ought to be more prayer (or even some) in public schools, this is labeled "intolerant", "shoving religion down our throats", or even "facist" in some cases if said liberal has become sufficiently annoyed. You would think that a group of people who hold tolerance is such high regard would practice it more often.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 11:27 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

> that there ought to be more homosexual public school teachers [...]
> but if a conservative proposes that there ought to be more prayer [...]

Compromise: Send some catholic priests into public schools, and you get both more
homosexual public school teachers and prayers at the same time (sorry, couldn't resist ;-)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 14:58 UTC (Tue) by tjc (subscriber, #137) [Link]

Yeah, that whole thing really suprised me. I always assumed that the priests-molesting-alter-boys thing was blown way out of proportion; maybe it happened once or thrice, and became urban legend after that, sort of like the lady who spilled coffee on herself in the McDonald's drive-through.

Moral of the story: most people are probably better off married, including priests and programmers. ;-)

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 29, 2003 13:06 UTC (Tue) by Wol (guest, #4433) [Link]

Dunno about Clinton - but I've seen various rants that that whole investigation was a Republican witch hunt - certainly Starr appeared to be on a fishing trip ... which I think is illegal under UK law!

As for the lady and the coffee - you need to check the facts. Coffee may be supposed to be hot, but it should NOT be capable of inflicting life-threatening burns! This coffee was served, IN AN INSULATED CONTAINER, at about 15C above the recommended maximum SAFE temperature. McD's deserved to have a massive damages award against them and, I believe, the jury was swayed into awarding these damages as a result of hearing that they had settled many similar cases out of court. They were outraged that McD's could knowingly choose to serve dangerous coffee!

And in the final settlement, I gather the lady ended up out of pocket, as they settled out of court for a sum that was apparently close too but less than her medical expenses.

Cheers,
Wol

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 16:45 UTC (Sat) by jeff@uclinux.org (subscriber, #8024) [Link]

Nonesense. It has been stated a number of times that all 2.4 was affected.

" JFS is not there. RCU is not there. NUMA is not there. What's the point in posting this link
over and over again? It proves nothing."

Yup, no JFS or RCU.

NUMA is most definately there. Have a look inside, notice that SGI wrote it:

# ls -l mm/numa.c
-rw-r--r-- 1 wheel users 3429 Sep 17 2001 numa.c

And SMP, which SCO makes a huge deal of in the threats and IBM suit, is specifically
patched to improve support, something SCO engineers knew they were doing because
it is distributed in the RPM as a seperate file from Alan Cox' tree.

So this does proves SCO knew exactly what they were doing. We all know their intent
to make Linux a killer enterprise OS, it was specifically stated (Ramsom Love, then
Caldera CEO). This RPM establishes when and what SCO knew and was doing. It goes
a long way towards proving not only that they knew, but that they were actively involved.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 17:00 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Yup, no JFS or RCU.

Look inside ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/scolinux/server/4.0/updates/SRPMS/kernel-source-2.4.19.SuSE-152.nosrc.rpm to find NUM and JFS source code.

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 26, 2003 17:03 UTC (Sat) by sandy_pond (guest, #9734) [Link]

Whoops. I ment RCU not NUM

Big Blue assuages customers about SCO (News.com)

Posted Jul 27, 2003 11:11 UTC (Sun) by vrfy (subscriber, #13362) [Link]

In 2001 Ramsom Love said this after Caldera decided to charge
a per seat license for its distribution:

"'We will give technology back to GNU, but being able to charge is the only way to get Linux into the enterprise back office,' Love said. "Freedom without any control is not good. The constitution gave the U.S. balance and it prospered - we need to do that with open source and have some guidelines. GNU was never designed to be a business model, just a development model.'"

http://linuxtoday.com/it_management/2001070402721OSBZCD