28 May
2003
28 May
'03
9:25 p.m.
Interesting. I suggest everyone interested in this fracas read the
whole scoop at (to repeat Kenneth Stailey's pointer)
http://www.novell.com/news/press/archive/2003/05/pr03033.html
Here's a question of interest not to the Linux community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
Norman Wilson
Toronto ON
29 May
29 May
1:24 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Here's a question of interest not to the Linux
community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
Good point. If memory serves me correctly, the 1998 agreement was
not free for the asking, but rather required shelling out US$100,
which means that SCO "sold" something they never owned, which
constitutes fraud (anybody with some legal background reading
this: please correct). What's the statue of limitations (sp?)
for this?
Regards,
Cornelius
--
Cornelius Keck
ckeck(a)texoma.net
2:02 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
On Wed, May 28, 2003 at 06:24:56PM -0500, Cornelius Keck wrote:
Actually, Novell have only asserted that SCO/Caldera did not obtain
the rights to System V. Now, neither the $100 nor the BSD-style
SCO/Caldera Ancient UNIX licenses covered System V, so this might
not be fraud.
It depends on whether or not SCO/Caldera have the rights to Research
Editions 1 to 7 and System III :-)
This is all getting to be like a very bad TV soap: UNIX Sons and Daughters.
We've got grandad Research who was a pioneer in the area, son USL, and
now a lot of bastard grandchildren. And of course there's the newcomer
in town called Linux.
Warren
Here's a
question of interest not to the Linux community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
Good point. If memory serves me correctly, the 1998 agreement was
not free for the asking, but rather required shelling out US$100,
which means that SCO "sold" something they never owned, which
constitutes fraud (anybody with some legal background reading
this: please correct). What's the statue of limitations (sp?)
for this? 
9:49 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
Here's a question of interest not to the Linux
community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
You can have the right to sublicense something without owning
the copyright. You can even have the right to sublicense the
right to sublicense without owning the copyright, and so on.
It all depends on your contract with the real copyright holder.
This is probably how the contract for Novell's "sale" of Unix
to (old) SCO was written.
But only the real copyright holder can bring a legal action
against copyright violators. And judging from recent press
releases it would seem that Novell feels it is under no
contractual obligation to do so on (new) SCO's behalf.
2:16 p.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and not on
copyright issues.
But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and putting it
into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit upset about it,
after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to compete with a product that's
just about free and contains code that I wrote.
Regards, Rob.
On 29/5/03 8:49 am, "Mike Haertel" <mike(a)ducky.net> wrote:
Here's a
question of interest not to the Linux community but to
the TUHS one: if, as Novell now claim, the 1995 agreement didn't
convey the UNIX copyrights to SCO, under what right did SCO issue
the Ancient UNIX Source Code agreements, whether the restrictive
version of early 1998 or the do-as-you-like Caldera letter of early
2002? Are those agreements really valid?
You can have the right to sublicense something without owning
the copyright. You can even have the right to sublicense the
right to sublicense without owning the copyright, and so on.
It all depends on your contract with the real copyright holder.
This is probably how the contract for Novell's "sale" of Unix
to (old) SCO was written.
But only the real copyright holder can bring a legal action
against copyright violators. And judging from recent press
releases it would seem that Novell feels it is under no
contractual obligation to do so on (new) SCO's behalf. 
2:33 p.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com>
Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes:
: I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and not on
: copyright issues.
All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
: But if it turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and putting it
: into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit upset about it,
: after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to compete with a product that's
: just about free and contains code that I wrote.
That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
SCO is blustering more and more as the open source community exposes
them for the fruads that they have become.
Warner
30 May
30 May
1:50 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The
IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a
different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
kernels.
In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
UnixWare 7.
Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright. The
release of JFS was one example. Probably the majority of AIX was
developed by IBM, not by AT&T. It's rather similar to the issue with
4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
require an SCO license.
If you mean "is there IBM copyright code in Linux?", I think the
answer is again yes, but it's under the GPL or possibly IPL, IBM's
attempt at a compromise between proprietary licenses and the GPL. I
think they've given up on the IPL now.
For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
true.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com>
Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes:
I believe the
legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
not on copyright issues.
All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
aren't actually alledged in the court filings. But if it
turns out the IBM is guilty of lifting SCO code and
putting it into Linux I think SCO does have the right to get a bit
upset about it, after all I wouldn't be to happy if I had to
compete with a product that's just about free and contains code
that I wrote.
That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to? 
1:56 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
In message: <20030529235027.GE20321(a)wantadilla.lemis.com>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
: On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
: > In message: <BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com>
: > Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes:
:
: >> I believe the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
: >> not on copyright issues.
: >
: > All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
: > statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
: > aren't actually alledged in the court filings.
:
: What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The
: IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
: have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a
: different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
:
: On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
: director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
: independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
: kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
: occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
: kernels.
:
: In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
: the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
: older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
: UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
: UnixWare 7.
I base my statements on the legal filings that are available at the
SCO site. I do not base them on anything that SCO has said to the
press, since those statements are nearly universally overinflated.
Since these are statements to the press, or other public statements, I
trust them as much as I trust public statements by politicians.
: > That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact, actually have any code
: > they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
:
: Of course they have lots of code with their own copyright. The
: release of JFS was one example. Probably the majority of AIX was
: developed by IBM, not by AT&T. It's rather similar to the issue with
: 4BSD in the early 90s: with a little bit of work you could probably
: replace the entire AT&T code in AIX and have a system which did not
: require an SCO license.
I was speaking of SCO, not IBM. What code does SCO own the copyright
to?
: For what it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
: true.
Me too. There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
line snippets scattered all through the kernel. Give me a break.
That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face. I can see
one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
can't see anything more pervasive than that.
Warner
2:37 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 17:56:39 -0600, M. Warner Losh wrote:
I was speaking of SCO, not IBM. What code does SCO own the copyright
to?
Ah, sorry. Got to pass on that one. They probably have the rights to
XENIX.
There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize a data
structure. Many data structures are public knowledge, and
initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
been written independently and look almost the same. Does this line
ring a bell?
(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)]->d_strategy) (bp);
How many people have written that independently of each other?
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
In message:
<20030529235027.GE20321(a)wantadilla.lemis.com>
"Greg 'groggy' Lehey" <grog(a)lemis.com> writes:
The trouble is that there *is* no legal filing on the Linux without
IBM case.
On Thursday, 29 May 2003 at 6:33:54 -0600, M.
Warner Losh wrote:
What's not very clear here is that there seem to be two issues. The
IBM issue is, as you say, a contractual one which about which they
have been remarkably vague. The suspension of Linux distribution is a
different matter. From http://www.lemis.com/grog/sco.html:
On Tuesday, 27 May 2003, I spoke to Kieran O'Shaughnessy, managing
director of SCO Australia. He told me that SCO had entrusted three
independent companies to compare the code of the UnixWare and Linux
kernels. All three had come back pointing to significant
occurrences of common code ("UnixWare code", as he put it) in both
kernels.
In view of the long and varied history of UNIX, I wondered whether
the code in question might have been legally transferred from an
older version of UNIX to Linux, so I asked him if he really meant
UnixWare and not System V.4. He stated that it was specifically
UnixWare 7.
I base my statements on the legal filings that are available at the
SCO site. I do not base them on anything that SCO has said to the
press, since those statements are nearly universally overinflated.
Since these are statements to the press, or other public statements, I
trust them as much as I trust public statements by politicians. In message:
<BAFBB8B1.118%rob(a)vetsystems.com>
Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> writes:
I believe
the legal action is over breach on contract with IBM and
not on copyright issues.
All of SCO's statements to the court have been contractual. Their
statements to the press have been inflated to include things that
aren't actually alledged in the court filings. That's the rub. Do they, in point of fact,
actually have any code
they own the Copyright to or the patent rights to?
... For what
it's worth, I'd be astounded if SCO's claims were found to be
true.
Me too. There's another article that is saying that there are 10-15
line snippets scattered all through the kernel. Give me a break.
That claim is so absurd as to be not credible on its face. I can see
one or two files, maybe stretching my disbelief to its limits, but I
can't see anything more pervasive than that.
3:01 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:07:46AM +0930, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
There are plenty of cases where you need to initialize
a data
structure. Many data structures are public knowledge, and
initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
been written independently and look almost the same. Does this line
ring a bell?
(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)]->d_strategy) (bp);
And you've got to watch out for these ones, which have been around
since 1973:
#define EPERM 1 /* Operation not permitted */
#define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH 3 /* No such process */
#define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call */
So that that extent, there is real UNIX code in Linux 8-)
Warren
3:20 a.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
On Friday, 30 May 2003 at 11:01:26 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
On Fri, May 30, 2003 at 10:07:46AM +0930, Greg
'groggy' Lehey wrote:
Heh. Also in the Third Edition:
/src/UNIX/PDP-11/Third-Edition/dmr/bio.c: (*bdevsw[dev.d_major].d_strategy)(rbp);
/src/UNIX/PDP-11/Third-Edition/dmr/bio.c:
(*bdevsw[rbp->b_dev.d_major].d_strategy)(rbp);
Yes, this is the reason why I asked Kieran if it was really UnixWare
or UNIX System V. They need to prove where the code originally came
from before they have any kind of case.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
There are plenty of cases where you need to
initialize a data
structure. Many data structures are public knowledge, and
initialization is a brainless enough task that the code could have
been written independently and look almost the same. Does this line
ring a bell?
(*bdevsw[major(bp->b_dev)].d_strategy) (bp);
And you've got to watch out for these ones, which have been around
since 1973:
#define EPERM 1 /* Operation not permitted */
#define ENOENT 2 /* No such file or directory */
#define ESRCH 3 /* No such process */
#define EINTR 4 /* Interrupted system call */
So that that extent, there is real UNIX code in Linux 8-) 
29 May
29 May
3:18 p.m.
New subject: SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
--- Robert Tillyard <rob(a)vetsystems.com> wrote:
I believe the legal action is over breach on contract
with IBM and not on
copyright issues.
SCO has packed so much FUD around this issue. If Novell did anything to help
it made SCO clarify their posistion.
http://ir.sco.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=110126
Another good thing that came out of this mess is the neat-o table embedded in
this page:
http://www.opensource.org/sco-vs-ibm.html
That shows AIX (and XENIX/SCO) in relationship to other systems.
Search for "Relationships among the Unix variants at issue"
It does leave out AIX 2 on ROMP.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
7842
days inactive
7844
days old
11 comments
9 participants
participants (9)
-
Cornelius Keck -
Greg 'groggy' Lehey -
Kenneth Stailey -
M. Warner Losh -
M. Warner Losh -
Mike Haertel -
norman＠nose.cs.utoronto.ca -
Robert Tillyard -
Warren Toomey