Linked by Eugenia Loli on Mon 1st Aug 2005 21:55 UTC
SCO, Caldera, Unixware The SCO Group's OpenServer 6 inherits a new kernel from its UnixWare sibling that significantly boosts the product's scalability. Although SCO seems like an unlikely outlet for open-source software, the company has extended OpenServer with updated versions of Samba, Perl, PHP and other key components, and it has given this operating system a more modern interface option.
Order by: Score:
v bah..
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:10 UTC
wow
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:13 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

they have a product ;)

surely glp licences from the like Samba, Perl, PHP will be revoked!

Reply Score: 0

Sigh!
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:21 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

>> glp licences from the like Samba, Perl, PHP will be revoked!

How old are you?

Firstly it's GPL and NOT glp.

Secondly, Perl and PHP are NOT GPL'ed.

Finally, you cannot revoke the GPL even if its used by an enemy. Once you GPL any software, it can be used by evil people to do evil things and there are a lot more evil people/companies/organizations in the US than SCO. One of them is the US Govt and they use GPL'ed software.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:57 UTC in reply to "Sigh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

How Old are you ??

"One of the is the US Govt"

Please, there are equally inflamatory counters but I will refrain from using them. I will however point out that SCO has never liberated a billion people and will ask how that fits in with the U.S. as evil.

Reply Score: 0

v RE[2]: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:09 UTC in reply to "RE: Sigh!"
RE[3]: Sigh!
by elsewhere on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:30 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh!"
elsewhere Member since:
2005-07-13

SCO has never liberated a billion people
UNIX liberated (directly or indirectly) more than a billion people from Windows. SCO therefore liberated a billion people.


By the by, Unix appeared in this world long before Windows did, which in turn I'm guessing appeared in this world long before you did. Therefore Unix never had marketshare to take, only to lose. And, well, I don't think a billion people have been liberated from Windows to Unix, either. Sorry.


how that fits in with the U.S. as evil.?
US Govt has killed innocent civilians (whether in act of war or self defence - don't care about the cause but innocent people died) - Nobody has lost their life from the actions of SCO (hence USGovt > SCO in evil terms)


Wow. Last week we had a moron ranting about Ubuntu being the product of an anti-white American black activist bent on using the Open Source movement as a vehicle for terrorist activities. Er, whatever. In another thread in today's postings, some are ranting about Apple, good old Apple that brand so beloved by birkenstock-wearing, left-leaning intellectuals, is insidiously conspiring to rob an innocent public of it's free will and human dignity by (heavens) enforcing licensing of OS X when it hits Intel. Now, despite all that you've still managed to raise the bar by somehow dragging the US government into a thread about OpenServer and therefore justifying SCO's questionable business ethics as being acceptable because, hey, it's not as bad as killing people. And I guess the GPL has something to do with it too, maybe, because of some reason or another. Ok. A couple of more posts and I'm sure we'll be hearing about mind controlling death rays. Powered by Windows, no doubt.

People, please, can we get back to the infantile Mac vs Windows or KDE vs Gnome or BSD vs everything flamewars of days yonder? They seemed much more rational and intellectually stimulating by comparison.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 04:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"Nobody has lost their life from the actions of SCO"
actually there are questions about a few suicides at SCO I would like to see more answers to and you may just be surprised....

Reply Score: 0

RE[3]: Sigh!
by Nicholas Donovan on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 12:50 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Sigh!"
Nicholas Donovan Member since:
2005-07-28

Sure kid. I'll keep that in mind as I visit the EU, as I visit other countries in Asia that the US has helped liberate and not occupied with a nationalist government as a result.

Care to claim any other countries that have done that?

BTW you should know that as a prior-service US Marine Officer, I find your comments extremely offensive. The US Government is far from perfect I 'll grant you that but it sure as hell beats the alternatives that are out there.

BTW, every country has killed innocents in war. That's the hell of it. As a veteran of two actions I can tell you it sucks but it beats letting the evil of the countries and dictators we've conquered reign unchecked.

Try serving your country and seeing these other countries you think are so great then we can talk.

Until then you sound like a liberal college kid whose actually believed the spoon-fed pseudo-intellectual garbage most of these useless professors vomit on their students.

Semper Fi,

Nick

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 17:25 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Sigh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

Semper Fi,

Hoo-ahh!!!.

Go to bloody hell Nick, you right wing nut job. Sheesh, we leftwing bleeding hearts have to educate saps like you because otherwise you'd be inbreeding rednecks.

You marines should be all strung up before a War crimes tribunal for all your crimes against humanity. Tell me has any country ever attacked US on US soil?. (Hawaii doesn't count - USA stole Hawaii at gun point)

BTW, EU is NOT a country. What countries in ASIA has the US helped liberate?. Vietnam? Sorry. Japan? From who?. India? Where were you?. Afghanistan? You made the mess. Iraq? OMFG!

Reply Score: 0

RE[5]: Sigh!
by Nicholas Donovan on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 18:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh!"
Nicholas Donovan Member since:
2005-07-28

Yah, I'm aware the EU is not a country. Those countries that comprise the EU for example (Germany, France etc.) were in fact liberated.

BTW your IP kind of tells me there is a high possibility that you're from the D/FW area and hence you know me and my company.

Asia... Japan (from the Japanese Fascists), I was in PI for the removal of the Marcos regime and spent nine months fighting both left wing and right wing idiots there.

I was in Iraq in the 1980's and early 1990's. I saw whole villages wiped out in North Iraq by Saddam with Little kids lying in the street lifeless. Were you there? Yah.. I didn't think so.

Instead you rely on some pseudo-intellectual professor (with no real-world experience) or talk show fool for your opinions instead of actually having been there.

As far as education.. hmm... BS of Science and a Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine (DO) by training.

As far as practice I'm the CEO of a small technology company here in the DFW area.

>You marines should be all strung up before a War crimes tribunal for all your crimes against humanity.

Well big man... you can try. Good luck. History is against you.... and you're going to educate me kid?

Like I said, actually travel to these countries then talk. Until then you're still wet behind the ears.

End of Conversation,

Nick

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: Sigh!
by Smartpatrol on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 20:40 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Sigh!"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

You marines should be all strung up before a War crimes tribunal for all your crimes against humanity.

Wow you really are ignorant! ever wonder why there weren't any know pacifists around in the world prior to the establishment of the United States? Thank a Veteran. Its nice to say whatever you like wherever you like isn't it? Thank a Veteran.

Tell me has any country ever attacked US on US soil?

England, Japan and no one since then becasue we learned to take the fight to them, something i am glad of.

BTW, EU is NOT a country.

Your right it’s a collection of sniveling whiners that are still peeved about wrongs they did to each other 1000 years ago.Europeans don't hav it in them to form any kind of Union.

What countries in ASIA has the US helped liberate?. Vietnam? Sorry. Japan? From who?. India? Where were you?. Afghanistan?<i/>

Philippines, Korea and parts of China off the top of my head. Not to mention rebuilding those countires like Japan into the economic power house that it is today.

[i] You made the mess. Iraq? OMFG!


Correction the UN made the Iraq mess. The United States and England policed it for 12 years then cleaned it up with the help of our allies.

You need to spend some time reading history before you open your mouth.

and FYI Hoo-ah! is an ARMY thing ;)

Reply Score: 1

v RE: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 04:29 UTC in reply to "Sigh!"
RE: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 14:36 UTC in reply to "Sigh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

>>Once you GPL any software, it can be used by evil people to do evil things<<

As long as those evil people comply with the terms of the GPL, which scox has not done.

Reply Score: 1

Yeah, but where would they be
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:25 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

if it weren't for FOSS?

Apparently it isn't going to make much difference ...

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20050731121601277

...as incorporating FOSS into their junk isn't going to save them.

Reply Score: 0

Does SCO really still have customers?
by Sabon on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:39 UTC
Sabon
Member since:
2005-07-06

Doe SCO really still have customers after the Linux thing?

Reply Score: 2

who would buy anything SCO?
by re_re on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:44 UTC
re_re
Member since:
2005-07-06

what company in their right mind would buy an SCO product right now?..... i mean, it's pretty obvous they are going to lose the linux battle.... and i have a feeling they won't be around much longer after that happens

Reply Score: 1

RE: who would buy anything SCO?
by morgoth on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:59 UTC in reply to "who would buy anything SCO?"
morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

I wouldn't buy a SCO product if they paid me. They have lied to the court, to the media, twisted things to try and make a buck, they are puppets of Sun Microsystems and Microsoft. They have failed to provide ANY evidence to the court, despite two rulings to do so, and in a 3 year period to boot! Then they've had the gall to demand that IBM provide irrelevant materials to help sustain their idiotic case (and not to mention mentality). You see, I have this thing called morality. And that tells me that SCO deserves to sink.

Novell's reply to SCO is nasty! I'm really looking forward to seeing the Sun & Microsoft lies revealed to the public eye, and then, hopefully, the US government will get off it's fat lazy ass and actually do something to Microsoft.

RMS SCO. It's hit the IBM iceberg, it's only a matter of time until it sinks. I wonder if Microsoft will save SCO when it files for bankruptcy?

As to revoking the license - I'm hoping RMS and Eben Moglen alter the new GPL v3 to allow revokacation of license should a(ny) user not comply with the GPL, or legally challenge the GPL, or behave in any immoral way towards the GPL. Companies like SCO don't deserve to use GPL'd software.

Dave

Reply Score: 1

hmm
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:48 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Sigh!
By Anonymous (IP: 24.127.17.---)

sorry typo its late...

surely on your logic then the GPL falls flat on its face because you can do anything to it and it can never be revoked..

sure i remember somewhere hearing about revoking scos GPL licences...

Reply Score: 0

We all love SCO so much...
by Anonymous Penguin on Mon 1st Aug 2005 22:58 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

---

Reply Score: 0

Is that KDE I see?
by sepht on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:01 UTC
sepht
Member since:
2005-07-06

The article has a screenshot and that seems to be KDE! Wow!
Let's sue Linux and than incorporate their #1 desktop enviroment into our product.(I don't use KDE personally, but it is statisically the most used)
And although KDE is for Linux and UNIX computers, it wouldn't even be ANYWHERE near where it is today without the growth and support of the linux community.
While others have put primary Linux Desktop Enviroments into their not-free OS(see solaris, JDS, Gnome, etc.), those companies haven't sued and prosecuted the founding base of the DE's community.

Reply Score: 3

v OpenServer is great
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:05 UTC
Court case aside
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:08 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

FTA:
For example, OpenServer 6 can support 32 processors, up from four in OpenServer 5.0.7, and supports 16GB of general-purpose RAM, up from 4GB in the previous release. Applications modified for OpenServer 6 can boost its RAM limit to 64GB. Also significantly increased in Version 6 is the maximum file size supported by OpenServer—as much as 1TB, compared with the diminutive 2GB ceiling of previous versions.

OpenServer 6 supports multipath I/O; NIC failover; and CPU, memory and PCIx device hot-plugging—all of which can help keep services available in the event of hardware failure.
------------------------------------------------------

Seems like they have made some really good enhancments to their OS. I hadn't realized that their previous specs were so poor (see above).

Reply Score: 0

v hmm
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:10 UTC
v Re: OpenServer is great
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:12 UTC
v SCO?
by segedunum on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:16 UTC
SCO NOOooo
by anand78 on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:20 UTC
anand78
Member since:
2005-07-07

Isn't SCO involved in Pee pee game with the rest of the Linux community. You never know what the outcome of the case would be. If I was a decision maker I will be very scared to do any business with this company.

Reply Score: 2

v RE:numb nutts (anonymous 82.96.100.--)
by re_re on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:21 UTC
v Linux isn't up to the task
by Anonymous on Mon 1st Aug 2005 23:41 UTC
v re:RE[2]: Sigh!
by re_re on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:15 UTC
v RE: re:RE[3]: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:18 UTC in reply to "re:RE[2]: Sigh!"
Read Groklaw and the GPL please
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:16 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

Finally, you cannot revoke the GPL even if its used by an enemy. Once you GPL any software, it can be used by evil people to do evil things and there are a lot more evil people/companies/organizations in the US than SCO. One of them is the US Govt and they use GPL'ed software.

Yes, you are absolutely right. You don't have to revoke someone's license, if that someone refuses to accept the GPL or breaches the GPL it automatically terminates. You distribute the code without the license (which is no longer there if it has terminated) and you are commiting copyright infringement.

For anyone who actually follows the SCO saga instead of just commenting on it, IBM called SCO on this.

When SCO released their Unix IP License for Linux, they only allowed binary use of Linux and charged per processor (as well as charging license fees period). This is a clear breach of the GPL. IBM filed a counterclaim against SCO for copyright infringement for SCO infringing IBM's copyrights contained in Linux (all of which were GPL'd obviously).

Also, SCO publically stated that the GPL was unconstitutional and that they did not accept it. The nmap developers then demanded that SCO remove nmap from their product since nmap is GPL'd and SCO had to accept the license to redistribute nmap. SCO complied, knowing they were on legally murky grounds.

As to revoking the license - I'm hoping RMS and Eben Moglen alter the new GPL v3 to allow revokacation of license should a(ny) user not comply with the GPL, or legally challenge the GPL, or behave in any immoral way towards the GPL. Companies like SCO don't deserve to use GPL'd software.

Perhaps you should read clause 4 of the GPL. I will post it here for you. Note this is from GPL v2, the current version.

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

Reply Score: 1

morgoth Member since:
2005-07-08

Thanks! You are absolutely correct, and I had a brain fart about this lol!!!

Dave

Reply Score: 1

v SCO is right
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:22 UTC
RE: SCO is right
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:32 UTC in reply to "SCO is right"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

The GPL is illegal and everybody just uses GPL code like public domain. I wish to thank all GPL authors for the free code that we sell in our proprietary products

OK, the GPL is illegal. Guess what? The license is invalid. This does not mean that the code is public domain, it merely means it is published online under a normal, restrictive copyright, since the license no longer applies. Guess what that means for you!!!??? Copyright infringement lawsuits! Since you do not have a license to use the code.

So either the license is legal and valid, and you have breached the license, so it has terminated as per clause 4 of the GPL, and you are infringing the copyright owners copyrights.

Or else the license is illegal and invalid, there is no longer a license covering the code, and you are using copyrighted code in your proprietary applications without a license from the copyright holder.

Take your pick, either way you are committing copyright infringement. May as well use innie minnie miny moe to pick, they both have the same outcome.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: SCO is right
by lrdeclpse on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 02:08 UTC in reply to "RE: SCO is right"
lrdeclpse Member since:
2005-07-24

I am not looking to wade into the middle of a shell of a fire fight, but you may not view my opinion in a way that will preclude that outcome.

Right, if we make an assumption that sometime in the future the GPL is ruled unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, the code that is running around the net will not disappear for the simple fact that computer software is absolutely nothing more than a chocolate chip cookie.

It's a mathematical recipe.

If I am Keebler, and I tell you that my magical elves can't bake cookies fast enough to meet demand and ask you to agree to the ECL (Elven Cookie License) and then inform you that our cookies are:

1 lb Sugar
3 cup Chocolate Chips
4 Tbsp Molasses
3 Tbsp Butter
Heat at 350 degrees for 30 minutes then eat.

And later the ECL is proven to be illegal, you already have the recipe. I can not remove the knowledge of how to bake the ultrasecret Keebler chocolate chip cookies, because you can't copyright a recipe.

That is precisely why Microsoft is so rabidly insane about code leaks. They already understand the idea that code is a recipe to bake the computer into a spreadsheet. They also know that our children who grow up in this ever more technological age are going to hit an epiphany and go "What the F!? Windows is a Cookie." Once that understanding is linked in our brains, and that understanding makes it's way to people in power, the only thing to stop change is precedent and lots of money. Which is why there is such a huge push for Electronic / Digital Copyrights and such.

It's just a cookie.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: SCO is right
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 02:40 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: SCO is right"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

I am not looking to wade into the middle of a shell of a fire fight, but you may not view my opinion in a way that will preclude that outcome.

Right, if we make an assumption that sometime in the future the GPL is ruled unconstitutional, and therefore illegal, the code that is running around the net will not disappear for the simple fact that computer software is absolutely nothing more than a chocolate chip cookie.

It's a mathematical recipe.

If I am Keebler, and I tell you that my magical elves can't bake cookies fast enough to meet demand and ask you to agree to the ECL (Elven Cookie License) and then inform you that our cookies are:

1 lb Sugar
3 cup Chocolate Chips
4 Tbsp Molasses
3 Tbsp Butter
Heat at 350 degrees for 30 minutes then eat.

And later the ECL is proven to be illegal, you already have the recipe. I can not remove the knowledge of how to bake the ultrasecret Keebler chocolate chip cookies, because you can't copyright a recipe.

That is precisely why Microsoft is so rabidly insane about code leaks. They already understand the idea that code is a recipe to bake the computer into a spreadsheet. They also know that our children who grow up in this ever more technological age are going to hit an epiphany and go "What the F!? Windows is a Cookie." Once that understanding is linked in our brains, and that understanding makes it's way to people in power, the only thing to stop change is precedent and lots of money. Which is why there is such a huge push for Electronic / Digital Copyrights and such.

It's just a cookie.


Yes, you are right that the knowledge is still there. There is one major thing you are overlooking though.

Microsoft could send you a gift basket containing CDs that have Windows source code. You now have the right to view that code. However, without a clear copyright license allowing you to utilize that code in your own products, you cannot do this legally. This is why I can post a short story on my webpage and you cannot copy it into a book you are selling legally. This is why Creative Commons and its licenses were invented. To give people this right when it comes to creative work.

The same applies to software. The GPL is the equivalent of the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike license. If I had a short story on my webpage, licensed under the CC A-SA license, and later that license was proved illegal or invalid, you would have no license to use my work under any form short of writing me a letter requesting its use. Same applies to the GPL. If it is invalid, you have no license to use the code legally, and therefore you can't without violating copyright law.

If this were not the case, do you really think Microsoft would have launched Shared Source, which lets people view the Windows source code? If the license for Shared Source is proved invalid, you still cannot use Windows source code in your own product.

This should be the same in all countries that have ratified the berne convention.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: SCO is right
by lrdeclpse on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 03:28 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: SCO is right"
lrdeclpse Member since:
2005-07-24

The problem is you completely overlooked the point of the whole post. Software is a recipe, and by law you are NOT allowed to copyright a recipe. The only reason this is true of software is that those who make laws are still in a generation cycle of "Oooo, shiny lights, must be magic." Our children will come to understand that software is nothing more than a list of ingredients to get a computing device to perform a function.

I can not copyright 2+2=4, nor 3*3=9, nor 10/2=5, nor any other mathematical proof or theorum. Software is math, plain and simple. If I tell the computer to flash the screen red, three times, then post "HELLO WORLD" I have created a recipe that allows me to perform this function translated to the mathematical integers required to flip gates.

A book is something completely different. You are entertaining an audience by inventing characters, stories, plots, spinning a yarn as it were. So it can be said that a piece of software like Doom is both a recipe and a book. The fact that the story is about a Marine in space shooting hellish aliens may be copyrightable, but the recipe that tells the computer how to make the main character rotate 80 degrees left and then fire his gun is not.

If x+y == z is true then x+y will always equal z. There is no other way to write that, whether you perform the function in C, PERL, Java or any other language the function must always prove true that x+y == z. What this means is that it doesn't matter how you tell the computer what z is or how I tell the computer what z is, because z just is.

Whether or not under the current legal findings it has become legal for me to claim to have invented chocolate chips and that now if you ever want to eat another chocolate chip cookie you have to pay me $3 is only temporary. Software licensing and software copyrights are fiction, they are smoke screens put in place to confuse lawmakers into thinking a cookie isn't a cookie. But z must be z, that is true and solid in stone.

I'm not saying that if you take NT source directly from Microsoft and put it into SCO9000 that Microsoft isn't going to sick lawyers on you. But we've come full circle and must again agree that z is z. WINE, it's derivatives, and that Open OS I can't remember right now that is trying to completely redo NT 4.0 are legal. But they are running windows code, even though they didn't take it directly from a windows CD. For a computer to work it must be given a set of instructions, for x+y must equal z. If I say "Hey, I need a blue border with a box with an X to close the box and pretty pictures in the box" and you say "Hey, I need a blue box with a window with an X to close the window and some kind of picture in the window." We've both decided that tonight we want a Chocolate Chip cookie and the only way to get it is to make x+y == z.

So WINE might write is y+x == z or maybe even z/x == y but the math is the same. If Microsoft puts the chips in the bowl first and WINE puts them in last, they both still come out of the oven as a blue bordered cookie with an X to close the program.

The point of language is that it doesn't matter how you write it if the meaning is the same.

Der Punkt der Sprache ist, daß er nicht ausmacht, wie Sie ihn schreiben, wenn die Bedeutung dieselbe ist.

El punto de la lengua es que no importa cómo usted lo escribe si el significado es igual.

Le point de langue est qu'il n'importe pas comment vous l'écrivez si la signification est identique.

If z is z then the result is the same. Software is a recipe, not a book. No matter that it takes a book to print the recipe, it should not be copyrighted for the same reason that Keebler can't tell me I owe them $3 for every Chips Ahoy I eat. Language, Instructions, Recipes are not able to be copyright protected.

Mickey Mouse - Copyright

The English Language - No Copyright

Han Solo - Massive Copyright

Einsteins Theory of Relativity - No Copyright

The GPL, the BSD, the Sun Commons License, all of them amount to companies trying to tell you that you can't use the secret recipe even if you find it unless you do what they want. It's all a house of cards, and it will tumble. A recipe is not a creative work. Math is not a creative work. Your short stories ARE a creative work.

That is why derivatives that perform the same function (ie clean room reverse engineered which is a pretty way of saying "Hey, we figured z was z, so worked the formula back from that point") are not able to be halted as long as right now thanks to DMCA you can prove that you didn't directly beat the door down through what was on the CD.

But, like I said in the previous post, very very few people have open enough minds to wrap around my definition of software.

Reply Score: 1

RE[5]: SCO is right
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 03:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: SCO is right"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

I doubt your definition of software really matters when legally software is copyrightable. Software can be covered by copyright, plain and simple. There have been numerous court cases proving this. If you responded to a judge with a similar arguement as yours, you would no doubt lose short of getting the laws changed.

Not all laws are just. Just because you don't agree with one, however, does not give you the right to break it, plain and simple. So if you violate a software copyright, be prepared to pay the consequences. Because in the end, your recipe arguement will not hold up against a copyright law specifically allowing software to be copyrightable, never mind the DMCA.

So I would highly advise you to get the copyright act ammended, against the wishes of much bigger entities than you (Sun, IBM, Microsoft, Novell, Red Hat etc.), before you run off and illegally copy software basing your right to do so on your recipe arguement, which has not been upheld in court to this day.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: SCO is right
by lrdeclpse on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 03:54 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: SCO is right"
lrdeclpse Member since:
2005-07-24

So now you decide you can call me a criminal? When did I ever say I've released a piece of software? Much less a piece of software with anything that was not mine in it?

Just for the record, some laws are so unjust they must be broken. Other wise, Americans would still be proclaiming "Long live the Queen."

I'm not going to be in court spouting a recipe theory to a judge. What I am saying and you are clearly ignoring is a revolution is coming. You can smell it in the air.

Reply Score: 1

RE[7]: SCO is right
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 04:49 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: SCO is right"
Anonymous Member since:
---

"..... a revolution is coming..."
i HOPE it is, i even BELIEVE it is but I wont be shocked if we all pliantly keep dragging along the same as we always have....

I personally believe it is PAST TIME for a quantum leap in the way we do practically everything.... I think dragging slowly toward changes is not getting us anywhere...ok, i am about to ramble on so I will stop!

Reply Score: 0

still awake hmm
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 00:28 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

By rm6990 on 2005-08-02 00:16:22 UTC

that be the one :p

Hope the Samba and other GPL teams are listernin.......


that would be funny

=== fantastic new product OpenDoorServer 6.5 ===
its unable to communicate with much and it has no User Interface but.. for $599 two-user Starter release (bring your own chairs) and $1,399 Enterprise edition its amazing at keeping a door open ;)

Reply Score: 0

RE: still awake hmm
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:01 UTC in reply to "still awake hmm"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Hope the Samba and other GPL teams are listernin.......

The problem here is that SCO is in full compliance with the GPL as far as these projects go. SCO violated the Linux copyrights with their binary license, they did not, however, violate the copyrights of the Samba team etc. Samba could claim that SCO announced it didn't accept the GPL, but that was back in 2003 so the legal concept of laches may apply here, since the teams waited so long (SCO has definately distributed Samba since then....for sure in SCO Linux and I believe in older versions of Unixware and OpenServer). Unless SCO breaches the GPL again with another project, they are legally allowed to redistribute those projects.

Linux, however, once IBM prevails on their copyright infringment counterclaim, will not be able to be redistributed by SCO. SCO has yet to be able to prove that their Linux Binary License was legal and didn't violate the GPL. There is lots of evidence suggesting it was illegal (such as it not complying with the GPL).

Two things are possible. SCO didn't license Linux, and only sold insurance against legal claims. This doesn't stand however, since SCO said the kernel could only be used in binary form, ie you couldn't modify the source. They also charged licensing fees, so it is almost definately a license. Still, even if they didn't license Linux, while it may be hard for Red Hat and IBM to collect damages, companies like EV1 Hosting, whom purchased the SCO Unix IP License for Linux could sue SCO for fraud. Who knows if they would bother though??? Red Hat would almost surely still prevail on their Lanham Act claims, as well as IBM's Lanham act counterclaims.

If SCO did license Linux against the terms of the GPL though, then they violated the GPL and infringed on others' copyrights, which is why IBM filed a counterclaim alleging copyright infringement.

Reply Score: 2

its weird talking with a number
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:14 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

at least with Anonoymous I have a name baised only on letters rm6990....

surely the fact sco has released new products with GPL creates a new violation...

and should be terminated....

all routes should be searched....

but i agree ur logic seems smarter then mine right im off to sleep...

Reply Score: 0

rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

at least with Anonoymous I have a name baised only on letters rm6990....

surely the fact sco has released new products with GPL creates a new violation...

and should be terminated....

all routes should be searched....

but i agree ur logic seems smarter then mine right im off to sleep...


Lol, it's actually based on a number I used in an email address over 5 years ago. Even though the email account was decommissioned years ago, the numbers stuck with me.

Anyways, no, redistributing a completely new project while complying with the GPL does not create a new violation. If you violate the GPL, you are not barred from redistributing all GPL'd projects, only ones containing code on which you have infringed the copyrights by violating the GPL. This has nothing to do with the GPL, this is just basic copyright law. Since Samba and Linux are 2 completely different things, they don't share code and don't have any common copyrights. SCO did not infringe on the Samba dev's copyrights, never violated the GPL in regards to Samba, and therefore can redistribute Samba as long as they comply with the GPL, which they seem to be doing. You can see that clearly by looking here.

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver6/600/opensrc/

Here is a direct link to the Samba Source code, including SCO modifications.

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver6/600/opensrc/samba-3.0.13-SRC.cpi...

SCO does not have much money to spend on bandwidth, so their site runs real slow. So expect a long wait if you wish to download a lot of source code from their site to verify this for yourself.

However, SCO is definately in violation of Linux copyrights and the GPL now that I have noticed something. SCO has halted all distribution of Linux, including source code. They will not send it to you via mail last I checked.

Now, it has been less than 2 years since SCO last distributed Linux in binary form. When you redistribute GPL software, there are certain requirements with regards to access to source code, laid out in paragraph 3 of the GPL. Here is the beginning:

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:


Here are the three requirements (you as the distributor get to pick one)

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,


SCO definately did not include source code right in the box with their product. Even if they did, this still would not apply to security updates they released for their products, such as updates to the Linux Kernel itself, which would have to be released under the GPL. So a does not count either way in SCO's case.

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
years
, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
cost of physically performing source distribution
, a complete
machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
customarily used for software interchange; or,


Now, this does not apply to SCO either. For one, SCO pulled the downloads and has stopped redistributing Linux source, but it has only been two years since they sold Linux in binary form and even less since they distributed Linux in binary form for free. So they are still obligated to redistribute source to any third party, including you and me (despite me never owning SCO Linux), upon our request. SCO is also required to release this code only under terms 1 and 2 of the license, which means if you request the code and SCO complies with its legal obligations under the GPL, SCO cannot file suit against you for copyright infringement.

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is
allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
received the program in object code or executable form with such
an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)


Section c definately does not apply to SCO, as they were not redistributing an exact copy of someone else's GPL based product, and they were selling SCO Linux for commercial use. In-fact they were the first company to push enterprise Linux, even before Red Hat.

I never noticed this before. It appears that SCO has not only breached sections 1 and 2 of the GPL by adding restrictions to the code not allowed by the GPL, SCO has also breached section 3 of the GPL by not following through with their legal requirements for source code redistribution.

So they are in a legal bind if I, for instance, email them demanding the code. If they don't turn over the code, any hope of them claiming their Unix IP license was just insurance is gone since they have again breached the GPL, although a different section. If they turn over the code, it can only be licensed as required under sections 1 and 2 of the GPL, so they are screwed when it comes to sueing you for copyright infringement for using Linux.

We should all email them and demand source code for the Linux kernel. Don't mention all of this, and then when they refuse, point out these things. Even if you don't they should still (legally) be aware of these requirements and comply with them.

Anyways, this is way off topic :-P Just something that came to mind.

Reply Score: 1

rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

heck, linspire isnt that much better ;)

ftp://130.94.123.237/

There is a link to that if you go to linspire.com, click licensing, click open source, then click the here link where it says to download the source. It also tells how to get Linspire to mail you a CD with the source code on it.

I would call that a bit better. Linspire isn't breaching the GPL in any form here.

Reply Score: 2

Anonymous Member since:
---

"It also tells how to get Linspire to mail you a CD with the source code on it. "

the day you hold one in your hand that you received in the mail, that is the day I will believe it....
a ftp site is nice but DOES NOT satisfy the GPL requirement...

Strange that the source they offer only has one ver of each package huh, you would think that they changed something at least twice throughout the whole 4.x version and so they would be required to offer the source code for each changed package not just the latest version of the package....

wonder why the source is rolled into a iso in 5.x, wonderif too many people just came and got the source code for lphoto and/or lsongs and took offf with it and linspire didnt like sharing. actually come to think of it I dont remember ever seeing the source code for lphoto/lsongs in the ftp site....

Reply Score: 0

move along
by Anonymous on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:24 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

Like anyone at this site really cares? Here listen..NO ONE CARES.

Reply Score: 1

I personally care
by David Kuhn on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 01:43 UTC
David Kuhn
Member since:
2005-07-03

Any company that proclaims GPL is invalid and uses GPL code in any product is definitely a hypocrite. With the Corporate chain of command, it is hard to see how they can include the code at all with a CEO like Darl McBride:

"Obviously Linux owes its heritage to UNIX, but not its code. We would not, nor will not, make such a claim. (August 28, 2002" "

- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Darl_McBride

Then again, with a CEO like McBride we can easily see how that happened...

Reply Score: 0

RE: I personally care
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 02:49 UTC in reply to "I personally care"
rm6990 Member since:
2005-07-04

Any company that proclaims GPL is invalid and uses GPL code in any product is definitely a hypocrite. With the Corporate chain of command, it is hard to see how they can include the code at all with a CEO like Darl McBride:

Not only are you a hypocrite, you are violating the GPL. A quote from the GPL :

5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or distribute the Program or its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by law if you do not accept this License. Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it.

Reply Score: 1

For all who are wondering
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 02:55 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

I double checked to make sure I was not telling a lie. the nmap developers did in-fact terminate SCO's right to distribute nmap under the GPL. The link is in this press-release. It is in the changes section.

http://www.insecure.org/stf/Nmap-3.50-Release.html

Reply Score: 1

It appears...
by rm6990 on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 03:00 UTC
rm6990
Member since:
2005-07-04

It appears SCO did comply with the nmap developers demands. A quick view of

ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver6/600/opensrc/

shows that nmap is not included in OpenServer 6, despite other open source components being included. Now, technically, SCO did breach the Samba and KDE licenses by refusing to accept the GPL at one point, but since no one called them on it, and it has now been 2 years since that happened, I doubt there is anything that can be done about it, because of Laches.

Reply Score: 1

Yeppers
by David Kuhn on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 03:59 UTC
David Kuhn
Member since:
2005-07-03

Not only are you a hypocrite, you are violating the GPL. A quote from the GPL : - rm6990

True. I don't think SCO likes to think the GPL is true though, even though they are using GPL software ;) .

Reply Score: 1

Question
by kaiwai on Tue 2nd Aug 2005 05:21 UTC
kaiwai
Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would a person use UnixWare or OpenServer when Solaris can support these binaries out of the box? why would a new customer consider UnixWare or OpenServer when one can easily purchase an x86 system from SUN, loaded with Solaris and a full JES stack for 1/10 the price of OpenServer or UnixWare?

Reply Score: 1

Re: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 02:37 UTC
Anonymous
Member since:
---

The United States and England policed it for 12 years then cleaned it up with the help of our allies.

2000+ Coalition dead and counting......bombs in London and 50+ dead........more terrorists than before.....more than 100K iraqis dead. No electricity, no water, no security, more people killed than Saddam's goons.....no WMDs.

You call that cleaning up? And what alies?.......Bwaaaahahahahaha.


For all the damn talk why aren't you with Rifle in hand in Falluja? (typical republican chickenhawks).


Let's get back on topic....ANY person and/or govt can use GPL'ed software for evil and you cannot revoke their license as long as they distribute the source code when the distribute the software.

Picture this: if the US Army puts any GPL'ed software on their smart bombs, they have to also put the source code on that warhead because the person at the receiving end of that warhead can demand the source code and under GPL, the US govt has to abide.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Re: Sigh!
by Smartpatrol on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 02:44 UTC in reply to "Re: Sigh!"
Smartpatrol Member since:
2005-07-06

For all the damn talk why aren't you with Rifle in hand in Falluja? (typical republican chickenhawks).


I served my country already how about you? I have been thinking about re-enlisting for awhile now, not to mention i was in Kuwait during and for the first year of the conflict as a civilian working for the ARMY. Where were you? smoking dope and hanging out with your loser college buddies?(typical liberal POS)

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: Re: Sigh!
by Anonymous on Wed 3rd Aug 2005 04:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Re: Sigh!"
Anonymous Member since:
---

how about you?

Are you daft or what?. I'm against war so why would I want to "serve"?.

Oh please sign up and serve! Good for you - hope you really get to spend some quality time in Fallouja and elsewhere. Yeah we smoke dope and contemplate how shitty the US Govt is but we sure as hell aren't killing anybody doing that.

Reply Score: 0