Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||
Groklaw Takes A Closer Look at the ABI Files
Worth a read: this lengthy investigation on Groklaw into the provenance of the Linux kernel ABI.
"This indicates that representatives of SCO/Caldera were the ones who collected, developed, tested, and maintained the source code to implement the ABI functionality, then placed the GPL notice on it, packaged it, and provided it to the entire Linux community. Given that SCO themselves did so much of the work to provide this functionality, and placed the GPL notice on it themselves, judging from these files, it seems hard to avoid concluding that SCO explicitly released the System V ABI under the GPL and that they did so knowingly and because they wanted to."
(Log in to post comments)
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Jan 31, 2004 17:41 UTC (Sat) by sreed (guest, #4006) [Link] Several members of the Groklaw community have worked together to do some of the finest investigative work I have ever seen. The SCO Group cannot honestly counter these facts or even spin them to The SCO Group's advantage.The SCO Group cannot _honestly_ continue to claim that they have a case against Linux end-users, Linus Torvalds, the GPL, or the Free Software community. In other words, "Checkmate." IANAL, but if I were, I would be proud to use Groklaw's work in a court of law. I sure hope the lawyers opposing SCO use this information, and credit its origins. And I hope the SCO lawyers read Groklaw's information and finally realize who and what they are defending, and how pointless that effort is. Sid
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Jan 31, 2004 21:04 UTC (Sat) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " I sure hope the lawyers opposing SCO use this information, and credit its origins. And I hope the SCO lawyers read Groklaw's information and finally realize who and what they are defending, and how pointless that effort is. "i've not any kind of reservation in saying you are full of right... but this isn't a clash of lawyers,... this isnt about SCO vs Open Source either... this is pretty much bigger... perhaps bigger than M$ itself... LINUX/OPEN SOURCE HAS *POWERFULL* ENEMIES... If not, how came "Crack Nut McBride" gives interviews in CNN, and the good people of Groklaw's dont ??? (http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0401/30/lol.01.html) With enemys like that(not SCO/McBride) the only chance for Linux/Open-Spource is to continue thriving to *win* all the way from Desktop to server to embeded... If it fails it will be outlawed. Before anyone trows me in the "Silent Bin of the Lunes".... only hope that what seems crazy now,... wont be grief tomorow...
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Jan 31, 2004 23:15 UTC (Sat) by nix (subscriber, #2304) [Link] i've not any kind of reservation in saying you are full of right... but this isn't a clash of lawyers,... this isnt about SCO vs Open Source either... this is pretty much bigger... perhaps bigger than M$ itself... LINUX/OPEN SOURCE HAS *POWERFULL* ENEMIES...Er, if the enemies are so powerful, they're pretty bad at hiring competent strategists and stoolies. SCO's repeatedly shooting itself in the foot with every elephant gun it can find. These are not the actions of a competent opponent, nor of an entity funded by a competent opponent: it's more the actions of an increasingly desperate bully. (i.e., Linux may well have POWERFULL ENEMIES, but these are not them. At most, the POWERFULL ENEMIES are tossing a bit of cash SCO's way in the hope that they cause us some discomfort. But to imagine that, say, MS has significant energy tied up in this comedy show is giving Darl *way* too much credit. MS isn't that thick.)
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Feb 1, 2004 0:35 UTC (Sun) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link] " (i.e., Linux may well have POWERFULL ENEMIES, but these are not them.At most, the POWERFULL ENEMIES are tossing a bit of cash SCO's way in the hope that they cause us some discomfort "That is all my point, and hope... that they will never find a way to shut "us" up.
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Feb 1, 2004 19:56 UTC (Sun) by edgewood (subscriber, #1123) [Link] Er, if the enemies are so powerful, they're pretty bad at hiring competent strategists and stoolies. SCO's repeatedly shooting itself in the foot with every elephant gun it can find.Yeah, I've been wondering if some wealthy Linux advocate is paying Darl and company to play the fool, to discredit anti-Linux/anti-OSS arguments. On the other hand, maybe it just comes naturally. <g>
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Feb 1, 2004 21:39 UTC (Sun) by kwacka (guest, #14598) [Link] Congratulations to Groklaw for their superb work.I did send an email off to CNN this morning after reading the transcript, pointing out that the ownership of the code is in dispute, and the actions are also against SCO, directing them to Groklaw - hope they can be bothered to take a look
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Feb 1, 2004 1:34 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510) [Link] how come "Crack Nut McBride" gives interviews in CNN, and the good people of Groklaw's dont ???You're right. I'll do something about that. Bruce
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Jan 31, 2004 22:19 UTC (Sat) by and (guest, #2883) [Link] > IANAL, but if I were, I would be proud to use Groklaw's work in a courtof law. Fortunally no layer has to consider this ATM, since SCO didn't dare to sue a single Linux end user for breaking "their copyright" yet. On a closer look they didn't even go to court with linux distributor because of copyright violations. I sometimes think it's funny to see the striking discrepancy of SCO's loudmouthed words and the things they actually do.
Groklaw's Checkmate Posted Feb 1, 2004 13:04 UTC (Sun) by hummassa (subscriber, #307) [Link] I think IBM's lawyers used references to groklaw in at least one of theirfilings...
SCO Lawyers need enlightenment? Posted Feb 1, 2004 4:44 UTC (Sun) by nicku (subscriber, #777) [Link] And I hope the SCO lawyers read Groklaw's information and finally realize who and what they are defending, and how pointless that effort is. Does anyone think that the lawyers believe they are supporting more than a stock scam? They may have done quite nicely from it already; I don't imagine they believe that their strategy is long term. Is there anyone who knows whether the SCO lawyers are likely to be ahead in their earnings so far?
This research could affect the contract-breach claims too Posted Feb 1, 2004 17:16 UTC (Sun) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link] A nice article in the research is:http://www.practical-tech.com/infrastructure/i08042000.htm The deal is done, SCO Unix and Caldera Linux are now under the same management, but what does that mean for the future of both companies and operating systems? .... According to Ransom Love, Caldera Systems' CEO and soon to be CEO of the combined SCO divisions and Caldera Systems, "Caldera has a proven track record of releasing the most important stuff to the open community. We haven't decided on which license to use yet. For standards, GPL makes a lot of sense and every product we'll ship with source code." Some code, however, can't be open sourced because other companies own it. After this publicly made statement, it is hard to claim "breach of contract" if IBM releases code they own to GPL.
Groklaw Takes A Closer Look at the ABI Files Posted Feb 1, 2004 18:49 UTC (Sun) by neoprene (guest, #8520) [Link] Did not SCO purchase a _distribution_ agreement from Novell?Money earnings from distribution of the AT&T/USL UNIX-code goes to Novell, no? Does not Novell assert their ownership of the UNIX Sys-V code? As such, what business has SCO (and/or sucessors) in either releasing that Novell code to GPL or pursuing any infractions to that code copyrights? Until SCOX can prove that they bought the AT&T/USL UNIX-code lock, stock & barrel from Novell, they can't claim anything from that code because they don't own anything of it. Why don't Novell right now besides asserting their claim to that code just release the old AT&T/USL UNIX code under the GPL being such Linux friendlies? I'm sure Bride McDarl would love that.
|
|||||||||||