From: Chris Price <cprice missing its to>
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: DU Licensing ramifications
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:01:45 -0600 (CST)
Hi;
I am currently assisting the local University's Comp Sci
department in fully utilising the ~24 UDB's that they have (166 and 233
models). Currently, they are simply running them as X-terms and are not
taking any advantage of native Xserving, applications, etc...
We are in the process of creating an environment wherein these
machines use some of their (albeit somewhat limited) CPU power to run
services/applications locally. A local xserver on each machine that will
serve xterms, emacs, and other programs is essentially what we have in
mind.
There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
netscape. After some careful research, I have come to the conclusion that
running the DU version of netscape is the easiest and best way to run
netscape on Linux Alpha. The problem thne becomes the licensing
ramifications that are created by the desire to run DU Netscape.
This university has several machines that are running various
versions of DU, but each license is of the 'per CPU' variety, no site
license is in place.
It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
scheme:
Via NFS, mount the /usr/shlib directory on the departments main
server on each UDB as /usr/shlib. We would also place a copy of /sbin
/loader in the /usr/shlib directory on the main DU server. On each UDB, a
softlink from /sbin/loader would point at the NFS mounted /usr/shlib.
Our questions is: would this scheme be allowable under the
OS/Software licenses in place for the Servers copy of DU?
Thanks for all your replies in advance...
Chris
From: Greg Lindahl < lindahl cs virginia edu>
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 14:11:25 -0400 (EDT)
> There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
> netscape.
Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
> It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> scheme:
Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
and it would be wrong.
-- g
From: Chris Price <cprice missing its to>
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 1998 12:37:02 -0600 (CST)
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
> > netscape.
>
> Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
> netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
>
> > It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> > to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> > case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> > scheme:
>
> Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
> and it would be wrong.
>
So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
I think clarification from DEC would be in order (or instructions
on how to seek clarification :) ).
Thanks
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall zk3 dec com>
To: axp-list redhat com, cprice missing its to
Cc: hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 98 16:29:35 -0400
The DU license requires that a licensed CPU execute the licensed bits. Whether
those licensed bits come off a disk attached to that CPU or whether they
come over the network does not make any difference.
Running the netscape binary on a licensed machine and displaying it on a UDB's
X-server is valid, since the unlicensed CPU is not executing any licensed code.
The *code* which is executing is the X-server from Linux, which is freely
available.
The instructions in the FAQ and the capability of the Linux kernel to run ECOFF
comes from a past history where a lot of Alpha Linux systems were purchased
to run DU, but as newer ones came out (and the older ones were "retired"), the
retired machines started to run Linux. Ergo, the machines were still licensed
to run DU, and people could use the libraries if they wanted. Also, the way
that Linux was first ported to Alpha was on a DECstation 2000 Model 150 machine
in a cross-development environment. Linus would compile and link applications
on DU, then run them on the Linux kernel. This continued to happen until the
Alpha Linux system was self-hosting. The ECOFF support is there for people
to use if they are licensed. And yes, Linus' machine had a DU license.
The UDBs were never licensed to run DU. Most of them were sold "without
license".
> You cannot suppose to tell me that their idea was that everyone would
> install Linux (for free) and then go out and buy a DEC Unix license
> to get the libraries( for $1,000's) in order to run DEC Unix
> binaries?
Actually various people have offered to pay the $1200. it would cost to buy
a DU license for a small machine. Unfortunately the people in charge of such
licensing have refused to make such an offering, because they fear that it
would imply worthiness of the libraries to run. Since some of the DU libraries
would depend on functionality missing from the Linux kernel, not all DU
programs would run on Alpha Linux, even if they were statically linked with
the DU libraries.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association
From: Thompson Freeman <tfreeman tfreeman vnet net>
To: axp-list redhat com
Cc: cprice missing its to, hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 09:47:24 -0400 (EDT)
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader wrote:
<<snip>>
> Actually various people have offered to pay the $1200. it would cost to buy
> a DU license for a small machine. Unfortunately the people in charge of such
> licensing have refused to make such an offering, because they fear that it
> would imply worthiness of the libraries to run. Since some of the DU libraries
> would depend on functionality missing from the Linux kernel, not all DU
> programs would run on Alpha Linux, even if they were statically linked with
> the DU libraries.
>
<<snip>>
I'm getting the feeling that the only legal way out of this challenge
is for the Alpha Linux community to recreate the DU libraries under
conditions where the new libraries could be GPL'd. A major effort to
say the least, and not one that Compaq is likely to want to support with
$$$.
---------------------------------------------------
Thompson Freeman
Free Wisdom!! Bring your own bucket and shovel!
---------------------------------------------------
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall zk3 dec com>
To: Thompson Freeman <tfreeman tfreeman vnet net>
Cc: axp-list redhat com, cprice missing its to, hall zk3 dec com, hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 11:26:22 -0400
tfreeman@tfreeman.vnet.net said:
> I'm getting the feeling that the only legal way out of this challenge
> is for the Alpha Linux community to recreate the DU libraries under
> conditions where the new libraries could be GPL'd. A major effort to
> say the least, and not one that Compaq is likely to want to support
> with $$$.
I would like to explain something, in case it is not really clear. It is
not just Compaq/Digital's wish to protect Digital Unix and its revenues that
drives this issue. It is one of legal issues with our software providers.
Many of you may not know that most Unix vendors still pay royalties to the
old AT&T stream of bits. Through the years the royalties went in this
path:
AT&T=>USL=>Novel=>SCO
Yes, The Santa Cruz Operation now gets the royalties that AT&T used to get,
so much for each copy of the OS sold. Most vendors pay this royalty, because
it is so low on a per unit copy that it is not worth taking them to court to
prove that you don't use their code any more. And it is not worth the
engineering effort to make sure you are not using it. This is the reason
that SCO can give away free binary copies of their code "for personal use".
By the way, Sun Microsystems does not pay these royalties to SCO, since they
exercised the right to buy out the royalties for a flat fee, which they
negotiated when they joined USL. This is the reason why Sun can give away
free copies of Solaris for "personal use".
In addition, Digital pays royalties to The Open Group, Sun Microsystems, Adobe,
Veritas, etc. While not all of these payments are for code in the libraries,
enough of them are so (again) purging it is "hard".
We (Compaq) are required by law to take "reasonable steps" to protect these
company's rights. Most of the time this would simply be to tell people not
to run Digital Unix on an unlicensed machine. And we protect that with
the License Management Facility, which is not perfect, but is "reasonable
steps". With the creation of a compatible kernel, the potential of someone
running licensed binaries on an unlicensed system becomes more of an issue.
This is why Compaq can not condone running the DU libraries on an unlicensed
system.
> I'm getting the feeling that the only legal way out of this challenge
> is for the Alpha Linux community to recreate the DU libraries under
> conditions where the new libraries could be GPL'd.
It would be one way that you could get existing DU applications to run
on an unlicensed Alpha Linux machine.
>and not one that Compaq is likely to want to support with $$$.
The truth of this matter might surprise you.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association
From: "Robert L. Millner" <rmillner nrao edu>
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:29:01 -0400 (EDT)
"Maddog" == Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader <hall@zk3.dec.com> writes:
Hello,
Maddog> Yes, The Santa Cruz Operation now gets the royalties that AT&T
Maddog> used to get, so much for each copy of the OS sold. Most vendors
Maddog> pay this royalty, because it is so low on a per unit copy that
Maddog> it is not worth taking them to court to
Do I recall something about Microsoft owning lots of stock in SCO? If
so, this means that part of the licensing fee for "Unix" goes to
Microsoft. Not that its illegal or anything and don't really read this
as complaining but:
That's really, really twisted!
-Rob
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall zk3 dec com>
To: axp-list redhat com
Cc: hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 15:20:57 -0400
rmillner@nrao.edu said:
> Do I recall something about Microsoft owning lots of stock in SCO?
> If so, this means that part of the licensing fee for "Unix" goes to
> Microsoft. Not that its illegal or anything and don't really read
> this as complaining but: That's really, really twisted!
I believe that Microsoft owns 14% of The Santa Cruz Operation.
Since this list has found other relevations that I have made interesting....
...let me tell you about the time that Digital had a deal with AMD to fabricate
x86 compatible chips in our FAB plant in Scotland (to use excess capacity).
Then we sold the Scotland FAB to Intel (way before the recent sale), but due
to our commitment to AMD, Intel found themselves in the position of having to
manufacture chips for their direct competitor. But everyone made money, so
they were all "happy".
Yes, business makes strange bedfellows.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association
From: Jeff Sturm < jsturm gatecom com>
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 1998 13:44:52 -0400 (EDT)
On Tue, 14 Jul 1998, Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader wrote:
[snip]
> In addition, Digital pays royalties to The Open Group, Sun Microsystems, Adobe,
> Veritas, etc. While not all of these payments are for code in the libraries,
> enough of them are so (again) purging it is "hard".
>
> We (Compaq) are required by law to take "reasonable steps" to protect these
> company's rights. Most of the time this would simply be to tell people not
> to run Digital Unix on an unlicensed machine. And we protect that with
> the License Management Facility, which is not perfect, but is "reasonable
> steps". With the creation of a compatible kernel, the potential of someone
> running licensed binaries on an unlicensed system becomes more of an issue.
>
> This is why Compaq can not condone running the DU libraries on an unlicensed
> system.
This licensing situation should sound very familiar to anyone who has
ever worked on a large commercial software distribution. For similar
reasons, Netscape could not simply release the Communicator source code
following their announcement; they have had to endure months of
engineering costs to cleanse the Mozilla source code of third-party
commercial libraries... it's a big cost in the short run, with the hope
of long-term gains. Definitely a risk for Netscape.
> > I'm getting the feeling that the only legal way out of this challenge
> > is for the Alpha Linux community to recreate the DU libraries under
> > conditions where the new libraries could be GPL'd.
>
> It would be one way that you could get existing DU applications to run
> on an unlicensed Alpha Linux machine.
Are we talking about source or binary compatiblity? Binary compatibility
could be difficult or impossible without intimate knowledge of DU library
internals, such as the stdio headers. Does DU follow any published
binary specifications?
Source compatibility could be as easy as adapting glibc to DU. I'm not
sure about the state of ECOFF support in the GNU toolset but this
wouldn't seem to be too big a burden, especially for static libraries.
Either would be useful...
Jeff
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall zk3 dec com>
To: axp-list redhat com
Cc: hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 15:40:13 -0400
jsturm@gatecom.com said:
> Are we talking about source or binary compatiblity?
I think that most people want binary compatibility.
> Binary compatibility could be difficult or impossible without intimate
> knowledge of DU library internals, such as the stdio headers. Does
> DU follow any published binary specifications?
None published, and I am not sure about even unpublished ones.
> I'm not sure about the state of ECOFF support in the GNU toolset but
> this wouldn't seem to be too big a burden, especially for static
> libraries.
There has to be some, since we use the GNU tools on DU.
Of course, what would be easier is the OTHER binary compatibility, that of
creating Alpha Linux binary compatibility on DU. Then tell all the ISVs
to port to Alpha Linux, and it would run on DU without change. A much larger
installed base for both systems. A win-win.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association
From: ford omnicron com (Mike "Ford" Ditto)
To: axp-list redhat com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 12:13:18 -0700
"Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall@zk3.dec.com> wrote:
> Many of you may not know that most Unix vendors still pay royalties to the
> old AT&T stream of bits. Through the years the royalties went in this
> path:
>
> AT&T=>USL=>Novel=>SCO
Jon gave a good explanation of the vestigal Unix licensing issues.
But there is one thing I don't understand. If you follow that stream of
bits back to AT&T, you are also going back in time... to a time before
shared libraries. It was, of course, common, and as far as I know,
completely allowed by the licensing of the time, for people to compile
programs, link in the Unix libraries, and distribute those binaries
without any royalties to the library owner. Aren't those vestigal
royalty agreements the same ones that allowed free distribution of
library code back when there wasn't any alternative, and therefore not
in impedance to doing so today?
I am very experienced in Unix licensing issues but I don't know the
answer to that question... which, I suppose suggests that it is
something that would have to be analyzed and contemplated by expensive
lawyers, which, I suppose suggests that it will never be answered for
the purpose of allowing free use of licensed libraries.
-=] Ford [=-
"The number of Unix installations (In Real Life: Mike Ditto)
has grown to 10, with more expected." ford@omnicron.com
- The Unix Programmer's Manual, http://www.omnicron.com/~ford/ford.html
2nd Edition, June, 1972.
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall zk3 dec com>
To: axp-list redhat com
Cc: hall zk3 dec com
Subject: Re: DU Licensing ramifications - You asked
Date: Tue, 14 Jul 98 17:19:09 -0400
ford@omnicron.com said:
> Aren't those vestigal royalty agreements the same ones that allowed
> free distribution of library code back when there wasn't any
> alternative, and therefore not in impedance to doing so today?
Remember I said "reasonable means" of protection. If something can not happen,
why protect against it?
In those days, ALL the Unix systems paid royalties. There was no
such thing as an unlicensed kernel. And *your* libraries ran on *your*
version of Unix for *your* architecture, and nobody else's. And all copies
of *your* operating system had the royalties accounted for. After all,
operating systems are complex things, and who in their right mind would
develop one and give it away for free? Particularly one that was binary
compatible with *your* libraries.
Nevertheless, licenses are renewed periodically, and modern day licensing
limits this activity.
You will be interested to know that it took Digital MONTHS to convince AT&T
that we should not have to pay royalties for demo copies of the OS, nor should
we have to pay for copies that sat on the shelf in a sales office, in CASE a
customer got shipped a bad media kit. Oh yes, they gave us free copies to use
for classroom teaching about how to use their system, but we had to pay for
the systems used to create the courseware.
Ahhh, the memories come back. I guess I will have to drink tonight to forget.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Compaq Computer Corporation Linux International
Mailstop ZK03-2/U15 80 Amherst St.
110 Spit Brook Rd. Amherst, N.H. 03031-3032 U.S.A.
Nashua, N.H. 03062-2698 U.S.A.
WWW: http://www.compaq.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424 Board Member: Uniforum Association
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: USENIX Association