OSS PING
If you are interested in a new OSS ping list please mail me
Posted on 08/09/2005 8:32:02 PM PDT by N3WBI3
Here are excerpts from the Deposition of SCO employee Erik W. Hughes [PDF]. It's a large PDF, so be patient. Our thanks to Frank Sorenson for picking up this deposition and scanning it for us.
Hold on to your hats. He confirms that the Linux Kernel Personality did indeed include Linux kernel code, and as a result, both UnixWare 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 included Linux kernel code until May of 2003.
While Hughes testifies that in addition to the obvious candidates (Caldera's Linux distributions), two releases of UnixWare included the Linux kernel in some way, as part of the LKP -- and of course, such inclusion would have to be under the GPL -- yet the question that is left unanswered, tantalizingly, by the deposition is this: in what way was the Linux kernel "included" in LKP? Did the UnixWare kernel somehow make use of the Linux kernel binary? If so, how -- and would the use be intimate enough to have created a "work based on the program" as the GPL puts it? If not, how was the kernel "included"? Was kernel source code reused in the UnixWare kernel, as one anonymous source claimed to eWeek's Peter Galli long ago? We don't have totally firm answers to these questions from this deposition alone, but IBM probably does, and we're definitely getting warmer. And more and more, it looks like SCO's goose is cooked.
No wonder SCO is now talking about trying to survive as a tech company even if they lose the litigation. It also is now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional, void, voidable, etc., anything to try to make it not be binding on them. Please don't anyone ever again tell me that we don't need the GPL. Look at the role this champion license has played in SCO v. the World.
You will also enjoy the questions and answers about Linux being available long after SCO said they had stopped distributing. You probably won't enjoy hearing SCO employees calling geeks "longhaired smellies."
=== Q. To your knowledge, do any of the other products -- or do any of the products listed on Page 16, in addition to Linux Technology Preview, include the 2.4 kernel?
A: There was a release of SCO LinuxWare release 7.1.2 that included the Linux kernel personality and SCO Linux-release 7.1.3 included the Linux kernel personality. At first when it first shipped it did include the Linux kernel packages which were subsequently removed.
Q: Which kernel packages did they include?
A: The Linux kernel packages. I -- I don't know which specific ones.
Q: Would it have been a Version 2.4 or higher?
A: Yes.
Q: During what period of time did those products -- that is, the Linux kernel personality -- include the Linux kernel? . . .
A: UnixWare 7 Release 7.1.2 shipped somewhere after the consummation of the transaction between Caldera and acquiring the assets from SCO, so the date is late 2001 or early 2002.
Q: Okay. And what about 7.1.3? . . .
A: Yes. It -- 7.1.3 included the Linux operating system, including the Linux kernel packages, until SCO suspended Linux and removed those packages from the media kit.
Q: Which was when?
A: Which was May of last year.
Q: So until May of last year, Unix -- those two UnixWare 7 releases included the Linux kernel?
A: That's correct.
OSS PING
If you are interested in a new OSS ping list please mail me
OUCH! Now that's going to leave a mark.
Damning testimony.
So if SCO claims their "deep dive" into the Linux code
found matches to SCO Unix code, we now know how that
happened.
For those just joining the story, some years into the
legal action, SCO has yet to show IBM, or the courts,
any actual instances of what they claim. Even the
judge has remarked on the absence of credible evidence.
Entirely apart from whether SCO actually has any grounds
for suing people over Unix (they apparently don't own it
- they are just licensing agents for Novell).
Oopss I meant Linus..
Personally, I'd like to line up every person that has ever had anything to do with the Santa Cruz Operation and beat them all to death!
I can't even tally the man-years I have spent dealing with SCO's crap products and 5th-rate support.
Can you change title to "Should Linus sue SCO?"
Can you change title to "Should Linus sue SCO?"
Didya see this?
*chortle*
We - myself and a bunch of others - hold copyrights on various portions of the Linux kernel. Of course, Linus Torvalds, the king penguin, is a major one of these copyright holders.
Neither you nor SCO may publish copies of the kernel, or of derived work, except under license from us, the copyright holders. We grant anyone who follows the terms of the GPL license such a license. Since there is no other license that is available for the entire kernel (some bits and pieces are also available under other licenses) therefore if you publish the Linux kernel or a derivative work, and don't follow the terms of the GPL, then you are violating our copyright. We may sue. In some cases, some of us have done so.
See further the following articles:
I'm claiming so long as you obey copyright it is free, as in I cant hid the source from you, you're not locked into a particular company, and if I yank support I don't leave you in the lurch. If RedHat really cheesed me off tomorrow I could switch to Suse, or IBM, or .... Its never been about:
1) Free cost, the OS is not a huge part of the cost in any given system (unless self built). Many distros are free and thats all well and good but not really important.
or
2) The right to take someone else's work and modify sell it without them getting credit, and your changes.
Now I have told you many times #1, and Ill assume you agree if I write something and want to GPL it I have a right to do so this leaves us with the conclusion this is just another cheap troll..
it's actually a trojan horse, that's sneaks in the door before the lawyers from the (ironically titled) "Free Software Foundation" swoop in and attempt to confiscate everything it touches.
Hmm... Oracle, BEA Weblogic, WebSphere, NetBackup, VMWare, Tivoli, Informix, DB2, Opera, (should I keep going). Many companies deploy software onto Linux keep it closed source, they do it legally, with the blessing of most members withing the OSS community, and make a good dime doing it. again its prety obvious youre trolling here.
Finally I see that your ok with SCO potentially taking someone else's copyrighted code and putting into their software without compensation, recognition, or adhering to the license under which the copyright holder released the code..
Ahh I can always count on you GE to be very selective as to when you thing IP is important.. BTW this is not the first time SCO has done this, they also copied completely chapters from the book "Book of Webmin" but you already knew that and ignore copyright violations by your pet companies..
HA! HA! HA! Serves em right! Mmmmmm....smell that goose cooking?! :-)
When will you ever learn? ;-)
Just waiting to see how hell try to change the subject yet again into ignoring SCO violating the IP of others.. Its fun to watch the worm squirm..
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.