Ptraci writes "Over at Groklaw they have been doing some digging and have found evidence that old SCO and Caldera did in fact contribute those files that they now want to charge us for."
Re:Their contribution...
by
jrumney
·
· Score: 5, Informative
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
Re:Mirror please.
by
inode_buddha
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
-- C|N>K
Regarding Groklaw's Slashdotting
by
santiag0
·
· Score: 5, Informative
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
Re:FBI investigates SCO as author of MyDoom virus!
by
Anthony+Boyd
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
Full Article Text
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Informative
This article is the result of a group research project, compiled and
primarily written by Frank Sorenson with Pamela Jones. The special
footnoted article explaining some of the terms for nonprogrammers was
written by Nick Richards. The research group was primarily composed of
Frank Sorenson, Dr. Stupid, Harlan Wilkerson, Rand McNatt, Roland
Buresund, and Pamela Jones, all of whom contributed both research and
writing, with input from some Linux kernel contributors. Everyone
worked on editing, including an invited group of Groklaw regulars.
However, Frank carried the load more than anyone else, so his name is
on the finished article.
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers'
further
contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an
ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll
discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We
approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed
paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it
does, then
discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether
management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux
files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that
SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as
myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and
in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how
they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for
you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more
easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is
planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we
haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out
that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual
Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new
ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource
Presentation (PowerPoint
version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from
OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files
containing
information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually
implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming,
reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of
this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands
check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When
applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this
functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and
version specific. Executables for different systems follow various
standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application,
the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of
the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and
begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the
system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture
or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991,
Intel announced
the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
Re:But didn't Linus say he wrote those?
by
spitzak
·
· Score: 5, Informative
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
Public thanks for Groklaw
by
3Suns
·
· Score: 5, Informative
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
Slashdot Mirror
The brilliant thing is that Caldera PGP signed the files that they released. So it is going to be extremely hard for SCO to argue that someone else released them, or that they were released by a rogue employee without permission.
I've put copies in html here, postscript here, and PDF is here.
C|N>K
There is a paypal link for those that wish to contribute a little something on the home page (once you can get it to load).
Maybe a few $ here and there from slashdot readers, and they can get a more robust setup, and survive the next slashdot link.
No pressure. Just a thought. I've given a little twice. Groklaw is a tremendous resource for those following the SCO/IBM/Redhat/Novell saga. PJ rocks!
I don't buy it. The site says they got their information from IBM. That runs totally counter to IMB's don't-talk-to-the-press rule. It looks to me like an attempt to spread bad information, pin the blame on IBM, and tarnish them.
I'd love to be wrong, though. The idea of SCO writing a virus against itself for PR purposes is almost too funny. I'd imagine a company or two might sue SCO to cover wages spent doing MyDoom cleanup. Ha ha. That would make my heart feel soooo good.
My Greasemonkey scripts for Digg &
We are now publishing the article and welcome Groklaw readers' further contributions, corrections, improvements, and comments. This is an ongoing project. This article is the first in a series where we'll discuss the System V UNIX ABI, or Application Binary Interface. We approached the research as, What if Linus Torvalds had not already claimed paternity of most of the header files? Then what?
The article will first explain what the ABI is and what it does, then discuss whether the code was released under the GPL and if so whether management at SCO knew and approved, and finally show how the Linux files that pertain to this do not appear to be infringing files that SCO can claim.
For those who are not programmers, such as myself, there is a footnoted section to explain in greater detail and in plain English what ABIs and APIs and shared libraries are and how they work. If you read it first, it will clarify the terminology for you and you will be able to follow the thread in the article more easily. At least, it helped me tremendously.
I think you will see from this article alone that if SCO is planning to sue anyone over the ABI files, unless there are facts we haven't unearthed, they seem to be leaning on a rickety bamboo reed.
GROKLAW TAKES A CLOSER LOOK AT THE ABI FILES
~by Frank Sorenson et al
Back in January 2003, word leaked out that SCO was planning to charge Linux users for "System V Intellectual Property" in Linux. SCO created a new business division called SCOSource to come up with new ways to make money from this "intellectual property". The original SCOSource Presentation (PowerPoint version) talks of licensing SCO's shared UNIX Libraries from OpenServer and UnixWare for use in Linux.
A Little Background: What Are ABI Files? [1]
As background information, shared libraries are files containing information to be loaded when an application is run. They usually implement common routines, and their inclusion simplifies programming, reduces file size, and standardizes interfaces. A simple example of this would be the "copy file" and "move file" commands: both commands check file permissions and manipulate the file system. When applications have a great deal of functionality in common, this functionality is often placed into shared libraries.
Shared libraries are architecture, operating-system, and version specific. Executables for different systems follow various standard formats, such as a.out, ELF, and COFF. To load an application, the system must do several things: the system interprets the format of the executable (or binary), loads any shared libraries referenced, and begins executing the code found in the binary.
If the executable is in a different format from those the system supports, or if the library files are for the wrong architecture or operating system version, the binary normally will not run. In 1991, Intel announced the availability of the iBCS-2 (Intel Binary Compatibility
No this is not errno.h and so on.
The ABI files being discussed here are some files that it was considered quite likely SCO owns, and were never included in Linux although they were added by some third parties to installations to port their software from SCO to Linux. They duplicate the SCO ABI which is different than the Linux ABI. It is a lot like Wine being used to run Windows programs, though a lot easier.
In fact these files probably contain code to patch over the differences between the Linux errno.h and the Unix one, so it certainly is not the Linus header files.
The header file stuff is a joke anyways, as Daryl clearly said many times that only Linux after 2.4 is infringing. The header files did not change between 2.2 and 2.4.
I'm not sure if it's been done, or if plans are in the works, but Groklaw has been a tremendous boon to the Open Source community. Everybody involved with making that site, especially Pamela Jones, has done an enormous amount of expensive work, pro bono, on our (the Open Source community's) behalf. The evidence is out there, and thanks to Groklaw it is being found and the world is being informed.
I'd like to point everybody to the little paypal button on the groklaw sidebar. They deserve credit for their work. Are there any plans for some kind of big party at a linux conference for Pam Jones et al.? Maybe after the case is settled.
-3Suns
~~~~
The Revolution will be Slashdotted