|
|
| Answering SCO Bit by Bit - Caldera's GPL Fingerprints All Over the Place - Updated |
 |
|
Friday, December 18 2009 @ 06:46 PM EST
|
Remember when SCO said it never released any of its own code under the GPL? Methinks it spoke with forked tongue.
I have now had an opportunity to look at files in another Caldera Linux distribution, Caldera OpenLinux 2.3-16, and I see Caldera's GPL fingerprints all over the place, much as I discovered using emacs to open up source files in OpenLinux eServer 2.3 the other day. And Caldera did write code itself that it released under the GPL. It also tweaked GPL'd packages and distributed with its own branding under the GPL. And it can't seem to stop distributing binutils under the GPL, while claiming in the SCO v. IBM lawsuit that it never did so.
Here's something that Caldera wrote and released under the GPL, COAS, which stands for Caldera Open Administration System, and I found this when opening up coas-1.1.7.src.rpm in emacs, the GPL:
Caldera also took other GPL'd packages and patched and tweaked them and then released them with their own branding. You see that over and over, in SysVinit, for example, and grep and binutils and sharutils.
The screenshots:
OpenLinux-2.3-16.src.rpm:
SysVinit-2.76.3-2.src.rpm:
SysVinit-scripts-1.05-5.src.rpm:
sharutils-4.1-6.src.rpm:
grep-2.2-1.src.rpm:
binutils-2.9.1.0.21-2.src.rpm:
Caldera even distributed code to make sure everything worked with Red Hat:
rhmask-1.0.4.src.rpm:
rh-compat-2.3-1.src.rpm:
They released under the LGPL also: glib-1.2.3-2.src.rpm:
 I think it's clear that Caldera knew what was in Linux, and it released under the GPL knowingly, including some things it is now trying to sue about.
The ftp address we published in 2006 where you could download binutils from SCO in was shut down. But you can still download binutils from SCO, as part of Skunkworks. You can download it automatically from here also: ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/iso/skunkware_2006.iso
[ Update: Actually you can't. A reader reports:
ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/iso/skunkware_2006.iso still works, but
binutils is not included in that iso, at least not today.
http://www.sco.com/skunkware/devtools/index.html has many links, but SCO is not
distributing binutils from links there.
http://www.sco.com/skunkware/devtools/index.html#binutils has three links, but
the SCO ones are dead.
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc/source/gnutools-5.0.7Kj-SRC.tar.bz2
still works today, and contains elf32-i860.c mentioned in
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-157-28-G.pdf
So yes, SCO is today 2009-12-18 distributing under the GPL the same code that
they seem to think IBM has no right to distribute.
Isn't it a good thing we have all these eyeballs? As fast as SCO removes the evidence, someone finds more. And how about these old CDs we never threw out? SCO can strip the Internet clean of all evidence. But the CDs? They can't do a blessed thing about them. - End Update.]
Here's what SCO claimed [PDF] in the SCO v. IBM litigation about ELF headers in binutils:
1. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never contributed or authorized these lines of code or the documentation related thereto, for use in Linux as specified under part 0, or any other provision, of the GPL.
2. SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never granted a license to any party that knowingly authorized use of these files or lines of code outside a UNIX-based distribution. Well, we'll see who owns what, but even if SCO owned the copyrights, is it true it never authorized these files to be used outside of UNIX? That it never authorized binutils for use in Linux under the GPL? Is it even half true? Or, to speak the lingua franca of late, is that claim meritorious?
On page 23 of this PowerPoint from SCOforum 2007 about open source tools SCO provided, you will see that SCO recommended installing "GNU binutils" with OpenServer 6. And on page 26, they listed all the places you could get Skunkware. On page 30, they suggested getting source code from the Linux source RPMs, so as to get the latest patches. And on page 37, it says that in 2001, SCO "submitted UW7 changes to FSF to standardize SVR5 triplet."
In case SCO doesn't have any techies left, here's a big hint for them. Binutils includes ELF, one of the things SCO's expert Dr. Thomas Cargill, claims is infringed.
And here's where they were still distributing it, in 2006, and here and here. All distributed under the GPL. I wonder if, at trial, Novell will ask SCO's technical witnesses about this. Did Ron Record, Caldera/SCO's Skunkworks maintainer, ever warn them that they were distributing binutils under the GPL, and that ELF was in there? Did anybody? If not, I'm sure IBM will, when it gets its turn at bat.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: FreeChief on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 07:03 PM EST |
| I don't feel any need to post canonical thread headers,
but I want to comment on
a news pick.
— Programmer in Chief
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: designerfx on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 07:05 PM EST |
| off topic comments here [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: bugstomper on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 07:07 PM EST |
Corrections here - summarize in the title for easy scanning
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- bit hint - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 07:54 PM EST
- bit hint - Authored by: PJ on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 11:49 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 07:58 PM EST |
Just an FYI. Looking at the raw contents of the SRPM you are likely to missing
many things. The binary chunks you are looking at are actually CPIO archives,
which themselves contain compressed source code...
Use the "rpm2cpio <pkg> | cpio -i" command to extract the
contents of the package.. Then you will get the patches, spec, and sources when
you can further inspect..[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 08:07 PM EST |
You don't have to look through all the binary garbage yourself. If you run
"strings" on a file it will just print the apparently readable text
strings that it can find in it.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Leg on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 09:10 PM EST |
Yes, although I am quite convinced that the meaning of the contents of the RPM
files is roughly as you've described, I must admit that the presentation of this
data is confusing. As such, it is a less effective arguement than might be
given if the contents of the files could be displayed separately. The
suggestion given elsewhere, to use "strings" to extract the string
data is probably not the best approach either, as it would probably present
disembodied text snippets without making it obvious just which files within the
RPM package contained them. It might be of value to seek the assistance of
someone at RedHat or ex-of-RedHat who might possibly be able to give you a tool
that could extract the files contained in the RPM package withoug installing
them to your system as if they were an update.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 09:12 PM EST |
Perhaps you should print all of this out, put it in a suitcase, and have a dozen
MIT rocket scientists analyze it. 8) 8) 8)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM EST |
"SCO, as the copyright owner of source code and/or documentation upon which
the following files and lines of code were copied or derived, has never
contributed or authorized these lines of code or the documentation related
thereto, for use in Linux as specified under part 0, or any other provision, of
the GPL."
Wouldn't that not count as perjury. They submitted something that so easily
proven false, there's no way they can deny they knew it was.
---
IANALAIDPOOTV
(I am not a lawyer and I don't play one on TV)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Leg on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 09:18 PM EST |
I'm wondering how it happened that SCO failed to deliver these files to IBM
during discovery? Wasn't their stipulation sufficiently broad to include these
files? Not that I doubt that IBM can now present these as evidence themselves,
it just seems to me that SCO has a responsibility to provide these files to IBM
that wasn't discharged here. Yes, I understand that these came from web sites
at a later date, but they show that they existed much earlier... [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: whoever57 on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 10:49 PM EST |
Run the command:
rpm2cpio binutils-2.17.50.0.18-1.i386.rpm | cpio -id
(replace binutils-2.17.50.0.18-1.i386.rpm with the actual file name).
"rpm" is available as a package for Ubuntu distributions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 11:16 PM EST |
SCO distributing binutils today 2009-12-18.
ftp://ftp2.sco.com/pub/skunkware/iso/skunkware_2006.iso still works, but
binutils is not included in that iso, at least not today.
http://www.sco.com/skunkware/devtools/index.html has many links, but SCO is not
distributing binutils from links there.
http://www.sco.com/skunkware/devtools/index.html#binutils has three links, but
the SCO ones are dead.
ftp://ftp.sco.com/pub/openserver5/opensrc/source/gnutools-5.0.7Kj-SRC.tar.bz2
still works today, and contains elf32-i860.c mentioned in
http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/IBM-157-28-G.pdf
So yes, SCO is today 2009-12-18 distributing under the GPL the same code that
they seem to think IBM has no right to distribute.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, December 18 2009 @ 11:29 PM EST |
.
SCO is going to have to admit to distributing their code and Linux under the GPL
--the SCO witnesses will all be asked file by file, program by program, version
by version. Add the license to each also. GPL and SCO will be pinned to
everything. If the Judge doesn't understand it before trial, he will learn the
hard way how frivolous and moot his trial is. The GPL does not decide who owns
the copyrights but it does render damages nonexistent.
This was apparent years ago but they persist. So PJ pounds them again with the
GPL. SCO can't say "Sorry, didn't mean it." That is an admission
too. The world accepted it whether they meant it or not. It is right in their
own writing: SCO distributes all the code in question under the GPL. All can
see it, use it, change it and distribute it.
All of this is undisputed. We need no trial for that. Every SCO witness will
have to bear witness against SCO or show themselves as a liar or unconvincingly
ignorant.
Releasing this code under the GPL means that SCO did not need the copyrights to
conduct their Unix Business. Even if they did have the copyrights, the GPL
allowed everyone to use and distribute.
SCO knew they were wrong. Even if they did have some exclusive copyrighted
code, they can't call it back once they distributed it under the GPL. Confusion
was their ally, along with malice and FUD. PJ took care of the confusion. The
GPL is simple and overwhelming. SCO licensed the code they claim was stolen
since they distribute Linux themselves. They can't point to any code that they
didn't license to the world. That is the genius of the GPL. How novel and
generous. For many this is hard to grasp.
~webster~
. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 02:46 AM EST |
caldera, n.: smoking crater.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 02:48 AM EST |
caldera, n.: smoking crater.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sproggit on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 04:02 AM EST |
There seem to be at least three different issues or questions
here:
1. Did newSCO, Caldera, or other predecessor-in-interest
companies, knowingly or otherwise, redistribute code under the GPL for which
they are now suing IBM?
As PJ's latest article and it's underlying
research shows, there is plenty of evidence to suggest that newSCO and various
predecessor companies have been knowingly distributing contested code under the
GPL.
This tells me two things: first, that newSCO are going to have to
abandon the GPL-is-unconstitutional line of attach as it would be laughed out of
court; and second, it illustrates nicely that in larger companies there are
occasionally instances where the 'troops on the ground' happily go and do things
that the executive management would stop, if only they knew about it. The thing
is, in the eyes of the law, those executives are held to account for everything
done by the corporation, whether they knew about it or not. That's the same for
SCO as it is for IBM. Unfortunately, I do not see that this helps resolve the
case very much. If SCO could prove the original act of donation was in breach of
copyright, and exert their copyright, then the code would have to be pulled. So
this is at best half an answer.
2. Did IBM release any of the
allegedly infringing code into Linux?
This is a very different
question, and I don't think the research in this article helps to resolve that
question either way. To do that we would need to identify every single piece of
allegedly infringing code and to trace it back to it's source. Since SCO have
not made that list of infringing code publicly available, I don't think we can
do much in this space. But for those programs or files that *have* been
identified, it should be possible, if we can work back through all the Linux
releases to look for the arrival of the files themselves.
3. Can
newSCO prove that the allegedly infringing code in Linux came from their
proprietary Linux? [ This is the 'ladder theory' test, as named by PJ
].
Again, we're not going to be able to do much with this, because
we don't have access to the CVS server that IBM gave SCO. But discovery is over,
and we know that if SCO had found a smoking gun, there is a pretty good chance
that Darl would have been giving interviews within minutes. However, as Linus,
PJ and others have said since "Day 1" of this debacle, Linux is developed in
public and it should be possible for SCO to say, "That file there, contributed
on that day by that person, that is ours and here is unequivocal proof of that
claim." That they have continued to fall short of that is very informative to
this non-lawyer.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 08:18 AM EST |
... nothing. At least when you are up against conmen who are backed up by
corrupt lawyers, judges and politicians.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: SilverWave on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 08:58 AM EST |
And I like the simple way it is presented - anyone over at SCO who is looking
in, can confirm any of this themselves very easily.
As no doubt was the intention. :D
---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 12:51 PM EST |
| Haven't we been here before?
"But, that said, I wouldn't want to test the
GPL in court, particularly given
Calderas history of voluntary compliance
with it."
-Ransom Love,
9/25/2003
http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Linux-and-Open-Source/Ransom-Love-
Cofoun
der-of-Caldera-and-SCO-Speaks-of-Unix-GPL-and-the-Lawsuit/ [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 04:38 PM EST |
I don't know if I have the same, identical version of Caldera Linux 2.3. But I
do have a CD which this discussion prompted me to get out of the drawer. It
appears to be from the company itself, not a re-burn by some third party, and it
contains the following in a file called READMEus.1st, dated August 12, 1999:
---------------------
Included in this OpenLinux 2.3 product is a BETA IBM ServRAID
driver version 99.05 for use with IBM ServRAID controllers. Due
to this driver's BETA status it IS NOT supported by IBM or
Caldera Systems. Please consult IBM's web site or Caldera's ftp
site for availability of an updated generally released and sup-
ported ServRAID driver.
"IBM is a registered trademark of IBM corporation."
-----------------------
Interesting, I would think.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 05:47 PM EST |
ftp site. Has it been Groklawed? It seems extremely slow. Does that site
constitute distirbuting? In which case:
THEY ARE STILL DOING IT.
According to the RIAA, it would be considered distribution if you just put it on
a shared drive open to the internet.
Of course an ftp server is not the same thing as a p2p server. So, maybe not.
Does this mean that if I start an ftp server and offer music on it, I'm home
free?
I just love our totally useless laws.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, December 19 2009 @ 11:47 PM EST |
What is the Bankruptcy Trustee's responsibility to investigate SCO's actions
with respect to the obvious removal of evidence?
Also, what is the Bankruptcy Trustee's responsibility to not remove any further
evidence himself?
And again, what happens if the Bankruptcy Trustee fails to disclose to potential
investors that SCO has been removing evidence that the lawsuits are a complete
farce? Might that create civil or criminal liability on the part of the
Bankruptcy Trustee?
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
