From apgarcia@oppie.phys.uwm.edu Wed May 21 19:53:17 2003
From: apgarcia@oppie.phys.uwm.edu (Phil Garcia)
Date: Wed, 21 May 2003 14:53:17 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>

Hi,

What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
Does it affect the archive in any way?

From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Wed May 21 23:19:45 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 09:19:45 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>
References: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie>
Message-ID: <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>

On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:53:17PM -0500, Phil Garcia wrote:
> Hi,
> What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
> Does it affect the archive in any way?

Assuming that the Caldera BSD-style license agreement for Ancient UNIX
is real (http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf), then it gives
us the right to freely distribute these systems.

	Warren

From grog@lemis.com Thu May 22 04:37:38 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 14:07:38 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <E19IZeH-0003J5-00@oppie> <20030521231945.GA14255@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030522043738.GJ68593@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 9:19:45 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, May 21, 2003 at 02:53:17PM -0500, Phil Garcia wrote:
>> Hi,
>> What do you make of the SCO (Caldera) lawsuit?
>> Does it affect the archive in any way?
>
> Assuming that the Caldera BSD-style license agreement for Ancient UNIX
> is real (http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf), then it gives
> us the right to freely distribute these systems.

I'd feel a *lot* happier if we'd finally get confirmation from SCO
that they both know about this license and agree that it's genuine. I
was contacted by a reporter a week or so ago, and I told her about it.
She contacted Caldera, who pointed to
http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html as the current valid
license agreement:

> When I mentionned to SCO that they had released free licenses to
> ancient Unix, they said that that license was for non-commercial
> use. When I mentionned the letter (January 2002) from Bill Broderick
> that seemingly grants unemcumbered use of these ancient Unix
> versions, SCO said that that is not the license agreement and that
> they would send me the license agreement. Here it is:
> http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html

It appears that there has been such turnover in Caldera/SCO in the
last 15 months that they don't know what they have done.

Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

From norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca Thu May 22 11:54:03 2003
From: norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Thu, 22 May 2003 07:54:03 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>

I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?

Certainly there are electronic copies around; it existed (perhaps still
exists) as a PDF file on Caldera's web site. I have a hardcopy in my
own files, next to the old SCO Ancient UNIX Source Code agreement for
which I paid hard cash (as we used to call the US dollar). But if there
is an original somewhere, that might carry more weight.

Is Bill Broderick still in an appropriately high position at Caldera
or SCO?

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON

From grog@lemis.com Fri May 23 02:37:22 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 12:07:22 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com>

--3XA6nns4nE4KvaS/
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline

On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?

This is a question I've been asking for some time. Sadly, nobody has
answered "yes". See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.

Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

--3XA6nns4nE4KvaS/
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD)

iD8DBQE+zYliIubykFB6QiMRAgUuAJ0eI1nXlTMpYdjFH/E4M8ZLRNwsEACeJrbO
Pa6MMP5QhTWGiPiRQrGLbZk=
=FRTX
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--3XA6nns4nE4KvaS/--

From tms2@mail.ptd.net Fri May 23 15:00:51 2003
From: tms2@mail.ptd.net (T.M. Sommers)
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 11:00:51 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org> <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>

Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> 
> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
> > I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
> > like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
> > to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
> > genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
> > that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
> > name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
> 
> This is a question I've been asking for some time. Sadly, nobody has
> answered "yes". See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.

If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
recognize now; they are bound by his statement.

From grog@lemis.com Mon May 26 02:56:50 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 12:26:50 +0930
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
In-Reply-To: <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>
References: <200305221154.h4MBsZJ8019026@minnie.tuhs.org> <20030523023722.GE80220@wantadilla.lemis.com> <3ECE37A3.6CDF0FA9@mail.ptd.net>
Message-ID: <20030526025650.GK15770@wantadilla.lemis.com>

On Friday, 23 May 2003 at 11:00:51 -0400, T.M. Sommers wrote:
> Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>
>> On Thursday, 22 May 2003 at 7:54:03 -0400, Norman Wilson wrote:
>>> I haven't come up to speed yet on SCOIBM Wars (pronounce it as you
>>> like, but perhaps not in polite company), but even so I know enough
>>> to ask a question: is anyone in possession of a signed, original,
>>> genuine, non-electronic copy of the Bill Broderick letter of 23 Jan 2002
>>> that granted a mostly free license (as long as credit given and Caldera's
>>> name not used in vain) for 32V, V7, and predecessors?
>>
>> This is a question I've been asking for some time. Sadly, nobody has
>> answered "yes". See also the message I sent yesterday: SCO have also
>> maid claims which suggest they don't recognize the statement.
>
> If he was their agent, then it doesn't matter what they claim to
> recognize now; they are bound by his statement.

Yes, of course. The issue here is whether we can prove that the
statement was made.

Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers

From norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca Sat May 24 18:47:57 2003
From: norman@nose.cs.utoronto.ca (Norman Wilson)
Date: Sat, 24 May 2003 14:47:57 -0400
Subject: [TUHS] sco v. ibm
Message-ID: <200305241848.h4OImTJ8039912@minnie.tuhs.org>

T. M. Sommers:

If [Broderick] was [SCO's or Caldera's] agent, then it doesn't matter what
they claim to recognize now; they are bound by his statement.

Assuming it can be proven that the statement was officially made,
which is why I ask after properly signed hardcopy rather than the
PDF file we have all seen.

Probably there are documents hidden away in SCO's files--there must
have been some paper trail leading to Broderick's letter--but that
is likely to be harder to track down from outside.

I don't doubt Broderick really wrote that letter, nor that he was
authorized to make the statement. But the problem before us isn't
truth, it's proof.

Norman Wilson
Toronto ON