List: axp-redhat
Subject: DU binaries on linux
From: Alvin Starr <alvin () iplink ! net>
Date: 1997-11-20 22:56:53
I asked this question before but some how I got nuked out of the mail
list. So here goes again.
I have a number of thoughts/questions.
I assume a staticly linked DU binary does not require licensing for
the libraries and that the configuration files that are required by the
resulting binary are not encombered by any licence.
If the above is true what would happen if you took a binary that used shared
libraries and ran it though a post process that would link the shared
libraries so that the binary was now static. My guess is that the
resulting binary would not require licencing?
Is there any reasonable way to take a dynamicly loading binary and make
it static?
Alvin Starr || voice: (416)493-3325
Interlink Connectivity || fax: (416)493-7974
alvin@iplink.net ||
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: "Maurice W. Hilarius" <harddata () bigfoot ! com>
Date: 1997-11-22 11:03:14
With regards to your message at 10:56 PM 11-20-97 -0500, Alvin Starr. Where
you stated:
>
>I asked this question before but some how I got nuked out of the mail
>list. So here goes again.
>
>I have a number of thoughts/questions.
>
>I assume a staticly linked DU binary does not require licensing for
>the libraries and that the configuration files that are required by the
>resulting binary are not encombered by any licence.
When I asked this type of question from Digital representatives I was told
that statically linking DU binaries does _NOT_ remove the presence of
pro[rietary or licensed code, and therefore this does NOT amke what you are
proposing legal. Some may disagree witht his, and I think it's a bit harsh
aswell, but the fact is that this is the Digital stance, and it is their
library code we are talking about. They own it, and they do get the final
say on the matter.
Cheers,
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Maurice Hilarius | The Past is History |
| | The Future is Mystery |
| | Today is a Gift |
| Phone/FAX (403) 456-1510 | That is why they call it |
| email:harddata@bigfoot.com | The Present |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: Uncle George <gatgul () voicenet ! com>
Date: 1997-11-23 7:21:27
No, the contract between parties has the final say in what goes. Learning to
read fine print, and then interpret correctly is not a CS course ( at least not
when I went to school!)
Maurice W. Hilarius wrote:
> With regards to your message at 10:56 PM 11-20-97 -0500, Alvin Starr. Where
> you stated:
> >
> >I asked this question before but some how I got nuked out of the mail
> >list. So here goes again.
> >
> >I have a number of thoughts/questions.
> >
> >I assume a staticly linked DU binary does not require licensing for
> >the libraries and that the configuration files that are required by the
> >resulting binary are not encombered by any licence.
> When I asked this type of question from Digital representatives I was told
> that statically linking DU binaries does _NOT_ remove the presence of
> pro[rietary or licensed code, and therefore this does NOT amke what you are
> proposing legal. Some may disagree witht his, and I think it's a bit harsh
> aswell, but the fact is that this is the Digital stance, and it is their
> library code we are talking about. They own it, and they do get the final
> say on the matter.
>
> Cheers,
>
> +--------------------------------------------------------+
> | Maurice Hilarius | The Past is History |
> | | The Future is Mystery |
> | | Today is a Gift |
> | Phone/FAX (403) 456-1510 | That is why they call it |
> | email:harddata@bigfoot.com | The Present |
> +--------------------------------------------------------+
>
> --
> To unsubscribe: send e-mail to axp-list-request@redhat.com with
> 'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to axp-list@redhat.com
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: "Maurice W. Hilarius" <harddata () bigfoot ! com>
Date: 1997-11-23 10:32:19
With regards to your message at 07:21 AM 11-23-97 -0500, Uncle George.
Where you stated:
>No, the contract between parties has the final say in what goes. Learning to
>read fine print, and then interpret correctly is not a CS course ( at
least not
>when I went to school!)
>
>Maurice W. Hilarius wrote:
>
>> With regards to your message at 10:56 PM 11-20-97 -0500, Alvin Starr. Where
>> you stated:
>> >
>> >I asked this question before but some how I got nuked out of the mail
>> >list. So here goes again.
>> >
>> >I have a number of thoughts/questions.
>> >
>> >I assume a staticly linked DU binary does not require licensing for
>> >the libraries and that the configuration files that are required by the
>> >resulting binary are not encombered by any licence.
>> When I asked this type of question from Digital representatives I was told
>> that statically linking DU binaries does _NOT_ remove the presence of
>> proprietary or licensed code, and therefore this does NOT make what you are
>> proposing legal. Some may disagree with this, and I think it's a bit harsh
>> as well, but the fact is that this is the Digital stance, and it is their
>> library code we are talking about. They own it, and they do get the final
>> say on the matter.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> +--------------------------------------------------------+
>> | Maurice Hilarius | The Past is History |
I don't quite follow what in the "fine print" you refer to, George. But the
fine print I have read on my license for DU says they own the code, and by
paying them a license fee they are granting me permission to use it, and a
long set of circumstances (the "fine print" that I have seen).
By specifically asking them about the concept of statically linked programs
on other platforms, I believe I obtained their "official repsonse". The
response was "No".
Some of us have been asking Digital about the possibility of a "lilited"
license that would allow us to use their libraries, either statically
linked, or otherwise, on Linux. We _HOPE_ that this comes to pass one day.
Perhaps if enough of us asked they might take it more seriously, and come
up with a scheme for this, at a reasonable price.
I encourage others to add their voice to that effort and contact Digital to
make this request.
Cheers,
+--------------------------------------------------------+
| Maurice Hilarius | The Past is History |
| | The Future is Mystery |
| | Today is a Gift |
| Phone/FAX (403) 456-1510 | That is why they call it |
| email:harddata@bigfoot.com | The Present |
+--------------------------------------------------------+
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: Alvin Starr <alvin () iplink ! net>
Date: 1997-11-24 19:58:07
On Sat, 22 Nov 1997, Maurice W. Hilarius wrote:
> With regards to your message at 10:56 PM 11-20-97 -0500, Alvin Starr. Where
> you stated:
> >
> >I asked this question before but some how I got nuked out of the mail
> >list. So here goes again.
> >
> >I have a number of thoughts/questions.
> >
> >I assume a staticly linked DU binary does not require licensing for
> >the libraries and that the configuration files that are required by the
> >resulting binary are not encombered by any licence.
> When I asked this type of question from Digital representatives I was told
> that statically linking DU binaries does _NOT_ remove the presence of
> pro[rietary or licensed code, and therefore this does NOT amke what you are
> proposing legal. Some may disagree witht his, and I think it's a bit harsh
> aswell, but the fact is that this is the Digital stance, and it is their
> library code we are talking about. They own it, and they do get the final
> say on the matter.
I wonder how they can take that postion when they have a binary
interpreter for Solaris. That product seems contrary to what they are
saying is standard practice for them.
Alvin Starr || voice: (416)493-3325
Interlink Connectivity || fax: (416)493-7974
alvin@iplink.net ||
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall () zk3 ! dec ! com>
Date: 1997-12-04 13:03:29
I am sorry that the answer to this question took so long, but I was expecting
that one of my co-workers would supply the answer, but they have not. So for
completeness sake:
The issue was whether Digital is talking out of both sides of our mouths when
we suggest that people use Freeport Express to translate SunOS Binaries to run
on Digital Unix, yet tell people that it is illegal to use royalty-bearing,
licensed code on an unlicensed system.
alvin@iplink.net said:
> I wonder how they can take that postion when they have a binary
> interpreter for Solaris. That product seems contrary to what they are
> saying is standard practice for them.
Simple. Freeport Express can use dynamically linked libraries. We duplicated
all of the functionality of the Solaris V1.x libraries in our Digital Unix
systems, so we only have to translate the objects that the compilers create.
We do not require any Sun binaries on the DU platform. If one choses to
statically link the Solaris V1.x libraries into your executable and bring
it over the statically linked version will work, but it will probably work
slower. It is better to use the dynamically linked libraries that we supply
on Digital Unix.
Did the Digital Engineers do a lot of work on this? You betcha!!
But its legal.
Please see: http://www.digital.com/semiconductor/amt/freeport/index.html
Warmest regards,
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Digital Equipment 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.unix.digital.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: Uniforum Association
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: Hugo van der Kooij < hvdkooij () caiw ! nl>
Date: 1997-12-05 8:30:56
[Download message RAW]
On Thu, 4 Dec 1997, Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader wrote:
> I am sorry that the answer to this question took so long, but I was expecting
> that one of my co-workers would supply the answer, but they have not. So for
> completeness sake:
>
> The issue was whether Digital is talking out of both sides of our mouths when
> we suggest that people use Freeport Express to translate SunOS Binaries to run
> on Digital Unix, yet tell people that it is illegal to use royalty-bearing,
> licensed code on an unlicensed system.
>
> alvin@iplink.net said:
> > I wonder how they can take that postion when they have a binary
> > interpreter for Solaris. That product seems contrary to what they are
> > saying is standard practice for them.
>
> Simple. Freeport Express can use dynamically linked libraries. We duplicated
> all of the functionality of the Solaris V1.x libraries in our Digital Unix
> systems, so we only have to translate the objects that the compilers create.
> We do not require any Sun binaries on the DU platform. If one choses to
> statically link the Solaris V1.x libraries into your executable and bring
> it over the statically linked version will work, but it will probably work
> slower. It is better to use the dynamically linked libraries that we supply
> on Digital Unix.
>
> Did the Digital Engineers do a lot of work on this? You betcha!!
>
> But its legal.
>
> Please see: http://www.digital.com/semiconductor/amt/freeport/index.html
Is there a way we can get a deal for these libraries? I know there are
plenty of people interested and if the fee is reasonable I, for one, would
like to participate.
You may resubmit this with Digital as a formal request. We have several
members of our Linux User Group in the Netherlands that have shown
interest in running the libraries so we can legally run things as
Netscape, etc.
Hugo.
+------------------------+------------------------------+
| Hugo van der Kooij | Hugo.van.der.Kooij@caiw.nl |
| Oranje Nassaustraat 16 | http://www.caiw.nl/~hvdkooij |
| 3155 VJ Maasland | (De man met de rode hoed) |
+------------------------+------------------------------+
"Computers let you make more mistakes faster than any other invention in
human history, with the possible exception of handguns and tequila."
(Mitch Radcliffe)
List: axp-redhat
Subject: Re: DU binaries on linux
From: "Jon 'maddog' Hall, USG Senior Leader" <hall () zk3 ! dec ! com>
Date: 1997-12-05 7:48:10
Hugo (et. al.),
I sent this today to the Vice President in charge of our Unix group. We will
see what happens. I believe this proposal would cover your needs.
BTW, for those of you who have seen and appreciated my calm, cool messages
on this list (some of which I have to take several days to write) you can
now see how I talk to Vice Presidents. THIS is why they call me "maddog".
I would appreciate it, by the way, if this were *not* re-posted.
md
=============================================================================
Tim,
I have suggested the idea of a "non-commercial" Digital Unix license to
various parts of product management and to Dave Pushee several times, and
the answer always comes back "gee, kind of an interesting concept", but then
if falls through the cracks and nothing ever comes of it.
Then OpenVMS creates one, and offers it at the last DECUS. AUGHHHHHHHHH!!!
This is #$@%^$#@&* stupid. *Unix* is supposed to be the "Open" system. *Unix*
is supposed to be the OS used in schools, by students, etc.
Time after time I have had Alpha Linux people come to me and say:
"Gee, I bought the Alpha, and it is cool with Linux on it,
but can I get Digital Unix to put on it too? I would like
to try it out."
Then I tell them they have to pay as much as a motorcycle to get the
license.......and another motorcycle to get the distribution!!
The Alpha Linux people that HAVE tried Digital Unix (and can afford it) often
switch to DU because of the application availability, or because they
recognize that it is a freaking fine operating system (e.g. the Mindspring
letter). But they have to *try* it first, and the $1900. entry point ($1200.
for the license and $700. for the distribution) is enough to deter that.
Sun has a "student license". SCO has one. Now OpenVMS has one.
No, CSLG does not cover this. It is too hard to apply for, does not cover
clones, does not cover student machines, does not cover hobbyists.
I would like to see a "one-time" license, associated with an inexpensive
distribution. You buy the CD-ROM and you get the right to run Digital Unix
on one machine. The cost of the package:
o Installation Manual
o CD-ROM set (BASE CD and Documentation CD)
o Two-user PAK
would also cover the royalties that are due to our royalty stream. I would
like to see the entire package under $100.
It would have no warranty, nor could you buy service for it. It would be "as
is". Only promoted and orderable through the web (low cost of sales).
Or, let's take a look at what OpenVMS has done and mimic that.
For heaven's sake, lets *DO* something.
md
--
=============================================================================
Jon "maddog" Hall Internet: maddog@zk3.dec.com
Senior Leader, UNIX Software Group Executive Director, Linux International
Digital Equipment 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.unix.digital.com WWW: http://www.li.org
Voice: +1.603.884.1341 Voice: +1.603.672.4557
FAX: +1.603.884.6424
Office: ZK03-2/V15 Board Member: Uniforum Association