Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!diablo.voicenet.com!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr25.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!6d26899a!not-for-mail
From: Daniel Rudy <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789>
Reply-To: dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789
Organization: SBC Internet Services
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11R6; U; FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 8
Message-ID: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.156.248
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr25.news.prodigy.com 1069324424 ST000 67.124.156.248 (Thu, 20 Nov 2003 05:33:44 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 05:33:44 EST
X-UserInfo1: OHXUBWSGQJPS@^LYMRKNOPDA[X_LPO@FKYYDMREK@YWZUYUBK^RAAEW[QDZ\YQ_IT^C_[EVLDV^NOMOBFFTINWDGGFTKX_DHE@[DRVKC^DQPPOD^HKAHIP[CODFMKGJNYDYIZCZLPI_UWEGS@D^W^B_^J[Y^G\KHBYZC@ESAY[FDPVPEGDA^M]@D]VT_QQVL
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:33:44 GMT
http://www.newsforge.com/business/03/11/18/1742216.shtml?tid=2&tid=82&tid=85&tid=94
--
Daniel Rudy
Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!fu-berlin.de!peer01.cox.net!cox.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!wn14feed!worldnet.att.net!204.127.198.203!attbi_feed3!attbi.com!attbi_s03.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #127
From: b...@pu.net (Mark Hittinger)
Lines: 34
Message-ID: <ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.141.241
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s03 1069344023 24.1.141.241 (Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:00:23 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:00:23 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:00:23 GMT
After reading some of the material it looks like what this new legal
issue will be is the use of *BSD code within Linux. The first issue
was the use of USL SYSV code within Linux.
The Linux world hasn't been all to careful about lifting code and
removing authorship/copyright comments.
It looks like within the *BSD code under the regents copyright we
are OK. Its the Linux distro's that are not under the regents
copyright that appear to me to be the target.
This brings two items to mind. First we know that in Win98 Microsoft
used *BSD code. Its likely that Windows code suffers from the same
legal issue that Linux code would except that I believe Microsoft has
some old license agreements made with AT&T back in the 386 days.
Second, is there a way out for the Linux crowd to build a distro under
the regents copyright? :-) :-) :-)
Apple needs to get their lawyers revved up if SCO really intends to
come after us. Given that SCO gave Boies an equity stake in SCOX and
20% of any settlement there will be an incentive for Boies to go after
the commercial users of *BSD as well. I think their Linux case is a
slam dunk, frankly, and probably will be fairly lucrative. Any *BSD
case would be fairly weak because of the prior settlement.
Of course I am taking every opportunity hearabouts to tell the worried Linux
hordes that they can simply choose to convert, return to the mother ship
as it were, to *BSD and all will be well. :-)
Later
Mark Hittinger
b...@pu.net
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!prodigy.com!prodigy.com!newsmst01.news.prodigy.com!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!newssvr13.news.prodigy.com.POSTED!6d26899a!not-for-mail
From: Daniel Rudy <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789>
Reply-To: dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789
Organization: SBC Internet Services
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11R6; U; FreeBSD 4.9-RELEASE; en-US; rv:1.5) Gecko/20031007
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en, ja
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> <ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
In-Reply-To: <ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <a%7vb.11419$a74.5525@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.124.156.248
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr13.news.prodigy.com 1069354054 ST000 67.124.156.248 (Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:47:34 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 13:47:34 EST
X-UserInfo1: TSU[@I_A\S@[RW@[[BJVNFTBTR\B@GXLN@GZ_GYO^BTBTSUBYFWEAE[YJLYPIWKHTFCMZKVMB^[Z^DOBRVVMOSPFHNSYXVDIE@X\BUC@GTSX@DL^GKFFHQCCE\G[JJBMYDYIJCZM@AY]GNGPJD]YNNW\GSX^GSCKHA[]@CCB\[@LATPD\L@J\\PF]VR[QPJN
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:47:34 GMT
Somewhere around the time of 11/20/2003 08:00, the world stopped and
listened as Mark Hittinger contributed this to humanity:
> After reading some of the material it looks like what this new legal
> issue will be is the use of *BSD code within Linux. The first issue
> was the use of USL SYSV code within Linux.
>
> The Linux world hasn't been all to careful about lifting code and
> removing authorship/copyright comments.
>
> It looks like within the *BSD code under the regents copyright we
> are OK. Its the Linux distro's that are not under the regents
> copyright that appear to me to be the target.
>
> This brings two items to mind. First we know that in Win98 Microsoft
> used *BSD code. Its likely that Windows code suffers from the same
> legal issue that Linux code would except that I believe Microsoft has
> some old license agreements made with AT&T back in the 386 days.
>
> Second, is there a way out for the Linux crowd to build a distro under
> the regents copyright? :-) :-) :-)
>
> Apple needs to get their lawyers revved up if SCO really intends to
> come after us. Given that SCO gave Boies an equity stake in SCOX and
> 20% of any settlement there will be an incentive for Boies to go after
> the commercial users of *BSD as well. I think their Linux case is a
> slam dunk, frankly, and probably will be fairly lucrative. Any *BSD
> case would be fairly weak because of the prior settlement.
>
> Of course I am taking every opportunity hearabouts to tell the worried Linux
> hordes that they can simply choose to convert, return to the mother ship
> as it were, to *BSD and all will be well. :-)
>
> Later
>
> Mark Hittinger
> b...@pu.net
What really bothers me about this whole thing is that back in Janurary,
they made a few comments about going after BSD, but then it was suddenly
dropped. I agree with you, it seems that they are going after the
non-BSD code in Linux that was contributed. Look at the recent events
surrounding SGI. They found that SGI contributed code and removed the
copyright notices. SGI has since then issued patches to remove the
offending code and replace it with clean source.
Is there merrit with the SCO vs. IBM case? Who knows? But, after 10
years, they cannot go and reopen the case, can they? I thought that the
AT&T vs. BSDi case was settled with prejiduce which means that it cannot
be reopened. From the link that I posted, it looks like SCO is going to
try and say that there is illegal BSD code in Linux, that BSD code
cannot be used in Linux, etc. Looking at the license, I don't see
anywhere that shows that the code cannot be used in other software. The
only requirement is that the copyright notices remain intact.
If SCO can prove that Linux does contain their code, and if they can
prove that IBM was the one that put it there, then we may see a mass
migration to BSD in general. Nice thing about that is we increase our
userbase considerably.
--
Daniel Rudy
Remove nospam, invalid, and 0123456789 to reply.
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!ash.uu.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
From: t...@iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:12:10 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: IQuest Internet, LLC
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <bpj3m9$11nf$1@news.iquest.net>
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
<ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
<a%7vb.11419$a74.5525@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-static-206-246-160-137.iquest.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.iquest.net 1069355530 34543 206.246.160.137 (20 Nov 2003 19:12:10 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.iquest.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:12:10 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1
In article <a%7vb.11419$a74.5...@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com>,
Daniel Rudy <dcr...@invalid.pacbell.nospam.net.0123456789> writes:
>
> If SCO can prove that Linux does contain their code, and if they can
> prove that IBM was the one that put it there, then we may see a mass
> migration to BSD in general. Nice thing about that is we increase our
> userbase considerably.
>
Even though this does seem like a good thing, I tend to prefer
avoiding benefiting from someone elses problem (like this.) The
GPL crew has gleefully benefitted from silly license mistakes
(e.g. OBJC and other things), but it doesn't make it 'good' if
BSD benefits from such mistakes made by the GPL advocates.
However, I do agree that the idea of 'what goes around comes round'
feels good in a mean way :-).
John
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.mathworks.com!news-out.cwix.com!newsfeed.cwix.com!news.binc.net!not-for-mail
From: David Douthitt <ss...@mailbag.com>
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 16:25:45 -0600
Organization: Berbee Information Networks Corporation
Lines: 46
Message-ID: <jl3trvkkjafedekgs6n7m7japg8vr85e1k@4ax.com>
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> <ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.73.77.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Trace: grandcanyon.binc.net 1069453632 11112 64.73.77.2 (21 Nov 2003 22:27:12 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@binc.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 22:27:12 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: Forte Free Agent 1.93/32.576 English (American)
On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 16:00:23 GMT, b...@pu.net (Mark Hittinger) wrote:
>After reading some of the material it looks like what this new legal
>issue will be is the use of *BSD code within Linux. The first issue
>was the use of USL SYSV code within Linux.
I don't see that at all. Darl McBride, I believe, specifically stated
that they would review the 1994 AT&T vs. UCal case.
>Apple needs to get their lawyers revved up if SCO really intends to
>come after us.
It would be interesting to have Microsoft, IBM, Novell, and Apple
stacked up against SCO.
Did anyone read that Tarantella (the OTHER part of the SCO split) is
now supporting Linux?
>Of course I am taking every opportunity hearabouts to tell the worried Linux
>hordes that they can simply choose to convert, return to the mother ship
>as it were, to *BSD and all will be well. :-)
As someone else has said, it is not good for a one part of the OSS
movement to gain at the expense of another.
Remember, too, that the GPL is also under direct attack. An adverse
ruling against the GPL would affect gcc for one - and would probably
have a bad effect on other licenses such as Perl's Artistic License
and the BSD License and so on.
I'm also interested in the major players that keep going with Linux.
An insurance company in India (one of SCO's glory stories) just
determined to switch 600 boxes from Unixware to Linux. The U.S.
Courts have decided to migrate - and then there is the pact in Asia,
and the city of Munich.
Too bad FreeBSD doesn't have more "glory stories." There's Yahoo and
a few others, but nothing press-worthy.
I did note that the longest running systems in NetCraft aren't Linux
but BSD (BSD/OS and FreeBSD) - with one Solaris. Way to go!
David Douthitt (da...@douthitt.net)
UNIX System Administrator
HP-UX, Unixware, Linux
Linux+, LPIC-1
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!in.100proofnews.com!in.100proofnews.com!attla2!ip.att.net!attbi_feed3!attbi_feed4!attbi.com!attbi_s52.POSTED!not-for-mail
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com> <ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03> <jl3trvkkjafedekgs6n7m7japg8vr85e1k@4ax.com>
X-Newsreader: NN version 6.5.0 CURRENT #127
From: b...@pu.net (Mark Hittinger)
Lines: 13
Message-ID: <6vAvb.205548$9E1.1103045@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 24.1.141.241
X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net
X-Trace: attbi_s52 1069470786 24.1.141.241 (Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:13:06 GMT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:13:06 GMT
Organization: Comcast Online
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 03:13:06 GMT
David Douthitt <ss...@mailbag.com> writes:
>As someone else has said, it is not good for a one part of the OSS
>movement to gain at the expense of another.
This may be true but we don't have to support the clear theft of source
code, removal of copyright comments, etc under the umbrella of the open
source movement. We need to be careful we don't get conned into supporting
something where that occured.
Later
Mark Hittinger
b...@pu.net
Path: archiver1.google.com!news2.google.com!news.maxwell.syr.edu!nntp.abs.net!ash.uu.net!news.iquest.net!not-for-mail
From: t...@iquest.net (John S. Dyson)
Newsgroups: comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc
Subject: Re: SCO plans on going after *BSD next year
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:09:33 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: IQuest Internet, LLC
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <bpmr2d$29ej$2@news.iquest.net>
References: <cM0vb.32779$ud1.31700@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com>
<ry5vb.257124$Tr4.803561@attbi_s03>
<jl3trvkkjafedekgs6n7m7japg8vr85e1k@4ax.com>
<6vAvb.205548$9E1.1103045@attbi_s52>
NNTP-Posting-Host: dsl-static-206-246-160-137.iquest.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.iquest.net 1069477773 75219 206.246.160.137 (22 Nov 2003 05:09:33 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.iquest.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 05:09:33 +0000 (UTC)
X-Newsreader: knews 1.0b.1
In article <6vAvb.205548$9E1.1103045@attbi_s52>,
b...@pu.net (Mark Hittinger) writes:
> David Douthitt <ss...@mailbag.com> writes:
>>As someone else has said, it is not good for a one part of the OSS
>>movement to gain at the expense of another.
>
> This may be true but we don't have to support the clear theft of source
> code, removal of copyright comments, etc under the umbrella of the open
> source movement. We need to be careful we don't get conned into supporting
> something where that occured.
>
My own viewpoint is that I don't see 'open source' or 'free software'
as a movement that I participate in. I don't have a special love of
'free software', just as I don't believe that commercial software
is the only answer.
However, when I find (or participate in developing) a tool that
works very well, and has numerous good dot-items (e.g. freely
redistributable, open source, few encumberances, wonderful
performance, reasonable project/product infrastructure), then
I tend to like the project.
For example, another wonderful (but under developed) project: TenDRA,
doesn't get alot of attention from me (even though it is interesting.)
It is missing some of the really important dot-items that make it
as valuable as FreeBSD. Another interesting OS project has alot
of wonderful attributes, but requires association with people who
too strongly believe in the project/OS as a religion :-(.
John