All GPL means is that you have the right to tinker with your GPL'd software in any way you want, and redistribute anything you come up with.
Thats exactly it. You have the ability to modify the software in any way you want. As long as you make an offer to distribute the source when you distribute the binaries.
... What if the closed source product isn't even under their control, or contains DRM?
You're missing the point here, in much the same way Linus does, over and over. I don't think GPLv3 is intended to kill DRM entirely -- you can certainly have a bit of proprietary software which uses DRM, and it can talk to GPL'd software. The point is, you're not allowed to use DRM to force only one specific version of the GPL'd software to run.
Linus is not missing the point, I think you do not understand his point of view,
You said it above, you can do anything you want with the source, but Linus goes further and says "not the hardware". As long as changes to the source are redistributed, Linus does not care if the binary will not run on *that* particular piece of hardware anymore, if thats a problem then don't buy the product.
The GPL-3 would make it all but impossible to implement effective DRM on hardware using GPL'd code.
Adding requirements to distribute keys would kill any future for Linux in parts of the embedded space.
Its all about the source. Not keys, not DRM and not limitations on use, hence no GPL-3 for the kernel.
There is no stable release any more, this is what this new numbering system is meant to replace.
Since 2.6.x a new development model was introduced whereby patches to the kernel were accepted even if they caused the kernel to become more unstable, exactly the same as the development series (ie. what would have been 2.7.x). The reason for this is to stop patches becoming stale while they are waiting to be accepted and to reduce back/forward porting, this is what the new numbering scheme is meant to address.
From now on there is no seperate 2.even is stable and 2.odd is development, there is one branch of the kernel which is developed and at some point in time that branch will appear stable enough to become a release. At that point it will become 2.6.x and development will then accelerate again (eventually becoming 2.6.x+1) leaving the 2.6.x to be maintained by the new $sucker maintainer, who may release minor updates to fix small problems, but no new features hence the 2.6.x.y numbering. When 2.6.x+1 is released it will become the new 2.6.x.y release.
Makes a profit? How do you measure that? Our favorite example of One-Click Shopping doesn't exactly generate concrete revenue...
Exactly. It should never have been allowed as a patent (easy shot, I know). The only claim they have is that they were the first to use it (maybe).
A patent allows the patent holder sole rights to the control of his invention in return for the public disclosure of the method of implementation.
This control was originally a tool that allowed the holder to make a return on investment of time and money and allow them to profit from the publication.
If there is no profit to be made why give them a patent? the protection offered (on *this* method) by a patent is nil, it may serve to deny competing implementations but that was never the intention of the patent system.
Your right, profit is subjective in this case, I agree it's hard to measure.
If they really want to keep their idea from being copied (esp. software/algorithms) then it should stay with the inventors as an industrial/trade secret and use NDA's to control if they license.
Business processes could be published and copyrighted, but that would still allow for competition.
People should be free to independantly implement ideas/algorithms/software without hitting the brick wall of patent litigation especially when there there is only one way to implement some idea.
I think that a lot of patents are obvious in design and they are only patents because someone thought to obtain the patent in the first place.
With Regards to the situation in Europe, it's the same old tactic, the same tactic thats been used to get the European countries to join the Euro. When the people say NO ask them again, then again, then again. Eventually they get the desired result and stop asking at that point.
That is a nice idea, but how would you propose to come up with the length of the patent?
Give them three years to come up with a use for their patent, then for each year that their patented idea actually makes a profit (including licensing), allow them to utilize the patents protections for a set time period.
This way they actually have to use it or lose it, also if it's any good then people _will_ license its use.
Using the latest XFree it's quite simple to set up TTF font use and the increased quality is worth the effort, I build my own so I'm not sure how it's done in the distribution world.
There are good quality true type fonts to be found and wine can be useful when extracting fonts that are contained in executable archives.
But SCO have said that any of their customers using their current Linux product will not be affected, they continue to provide support - in the full knowledge that the linux kernel they are using (which *has* to be released under the GPL) contains their supposed IP. Either the product they supplied is under the GPL or it's not.
If they say it's not under the GPL then they are clearly in breach of the terms of the GPL for using GPL code and are open to legal action, if it is under the GPL then SCO can have no complaint, their code is open.
If they continue to press the fact that the code is theirs then they have to withdraw Linux from their customers because it violates the terms of the GPL.
It's no longer good faith, SCO continue to support a distributed work, derived from the GPL, without releasing their included IP under the GPL.
It's as if I know my car is in the garage when I sell and then try and claim ownership of the house because of that fact.
Heres a quote from an article at internews that gives an idea why IBM may be taking a laid back attitude to this.
"IBM's position is that our contract is perpetual and irrevocable and there is nothing further to discuss," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino told internetnews.com Thursday. She added, "We do not see momentum slowing anywhere, either with AIX or Linux."
In a research note based on a meeting with Bill Zeitler, IBM senior vice president and group executive of the Systems Group, Deutsche Bank Securities analyst George Elling said Zeitler defended IBM's case against SCO by noting Big Blue's 700 existing or pending patents related to AIX.
700 existing or pending patents, do SCO know of those? what if the code is in AIX and Monterey?
How can IBM obtain patents on code that's supposed to be donated to SCO or is AIX completely seperate from SCOs code?
This is confusing, IBM are going to rip them to shreds.
Normally with an IP/Copyright issue you go for the little guy, get some cash and establish precedence, then go after the bigger fish. Unless of course your trying to annnoy some company and get them to buy you out.
Sorry, maybe I should have said that Linux was inspired by Minix. The creator of Minix, Andrew Tanenbaum wrote minix from scratch as a teaching aid, are you trying to say that he wrote mach too?. I also read his book which contained the source code to minix, that also made no reference to mach.
I would be interested to see where the minix that Linus was using was based on Mach.
Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?
Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.
As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many vendors used on one of your products.
Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.
How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.
Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.
So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.
This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.
Here you will find the pdf of the Linux Kernel Internals, authored by Tigran Aivazian (tigran@veritas.com). Now, he has been submitting patches to the kernel for a long time.
He submitted patches for (among others)
Microcode updates
iBCS patches
kgdb patches
Linux Implementation of SCO UnixWare BFS
and I'm sure a lot more, across a wide range of kernel versions (2.2/2.3/2.4...)
Why does this matter? Well his email used to be tigran@ocston.org. odd domain name, try reversing it.search and look at the first two results, then look here for more info about the first entry.
Before that his email was tigran@sco.org, but he got a little paranoid about it.
Searching google brings up patches supplied by him throughout the whole development cycle of 2.3/2.4 and more. He is directly connected to the author of the LKP on SCO Unix, draw your own conclusions here.
No, as someone else said in a previous SCO article, Cadlera (SCO) want Linux itself. They want to charge everybody a license fee for it's use and regain control over their perceived ownership of everything UNIX.
Thats why they are refusing to reveal the code, thats why they are now saying that it would be almost impossible to remove the offending code, they are trying to show that the Linux source has become 'polluted' with their UNIX code, they can smell the money (and so too can the investors).
Ok, its been said many times up to now, but. What if the code came from SCO themselves, no, hang on, *the original SCO* (not Caldera SCO).
Heres a link to an article written in May 2000, by the old SCO company and in it they say...
SCO is expected to announce 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux for Intel-based servers, which will be available in the fourth quarter of this year. In early 2001, SCO plans to deliver a 32-bit Internet Infrastructure Edition that will come bundled with a Web server and other IP applications. The company is also working on a 64-bit edition for service providers, including ISPs and application service providers, which will feature special billing and management tools.
The company is also expected to explore the following areas:
* Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux clustering technology is generally limited to two or four nodes.
* Beefing up Linux's symmetric multiprocessing capabilities. Currently the number of CPUs per Linux server is usually limited to eight; UnixWare can run on servers with up to 32 CPUs.
* Managing multiple Linux servers as well as applications from a single console as if they were a single system.
* Improving security and the ability of Linux to handle applications such as e-mail, including instant messaging.
* Adding online support services and documentation.
Crucial to the company's success will be ensuring that it rapidly offers adequate device drivers and APIs to let independent software vendors port existing SCO Unix applications to SCO's Linux, says David Boyes of Dimension Enterprise, a data center design and testing firm in Herndon, Va. His company runs a variety of Linux applications, mostly using TurboLinux.
Hmmm... What are Calderas claims again? Check that name:).
Ok, if SCO were hacking Linux at this point why didn't they raise the flag then? They were working on Linux, they had both sets of sources, Calderas claim is that the code is from the Early 80's and relates to NUMA? I doubt it, Ok, x86 SMP, err I doubt that too, What does that leave on a (x86) processor from the early 80's? This time period was right in the middle of 2.4 development.
MozillaQuest Magazine: When Darl said "substantial System V code showing up in Linux", did he mean the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or Linux applications? If it is in the kernel, which kernel version(s)?
Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. (Emphasis added.)
Wasn't OpenUNIX 8 (the rename of UnixWare 7, A.K.A. SVR5 UNIX) supposed to meld a lot of Linux and UNIX things. I don't think they violated any copyrights but it does show that SCO/Caldera was deep in the Linux world for a long time. How they just recently came up with this realization is still a mystery.
Yep, they wrote a linux personality toolkit (as someone else mentioned), but they say it was done using a cleanroom approach.
They are changing their story hour by hour. First they said that it was IBM who had used SCOs IP (used in the development of Monterey) to improve Linux, now they are expanding their claim to cover large portions of the 2.4 kernel, going back years, they must have known, they were developing monterey and one of their employees at least must have looked at the kernel source out of curiosity.
Somone mentioned that Christoph Hellwig is an ex SCO employee (don't know how true that is) but their's an interesting thread here.
This company has a one way ticket, when it's over I bet they wish they took the blue pill:).
SCO's Juergen Kienhoefer tells us that by mapping clone processes directly onto UnixWare's native threads, huge performance gains can be realised. "Basically thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux," he said. The performance boost could particularly benefit applications such as Domino, according to Kienhoefer. Other gains could be made by using UnixWare libraries, and he reckons that SETI at home shows a 4x improvement over native Linux, as it uses UnixWare's own maths libraries.
SCO/Caldera, or as we'll refer to them for convenience from now on, Scaldera intends to ship the environment by the end of the year. At the session, SCO officials said that the the environment amounts to around 40,000 lines of code, plus around 2m drawn from the real Linux kernel tree. This doesn't seem to be the case however, and see our front page for a detailed update. It supports Linux Binary Interface and APIs, says SCO, and provides device support too.
couldn't find the reference to the front page though.
Even if they never used the code in the end it is proof that they were fully aware of Linux internals. If they chose to distribute it under the GPL then they only have themselves to blame.
As so many have said, what if some code was borrowed from linux...
Miles Barel, IBM's program director of Unix marketing, acknowledges that Linux could overtake Monterey as the Unix platform of choice, possibly within three years. "In the interim, IBM will build Linux compatibility into Monterey," says Barel. "And if Linux does take over completely, Monterey users will continue to be able to run their apps."
I haven't seen a reference to this article yet?
Are they claiming ownership of C++??
The SCO Group now owns the entire bundle of products that were the property of the AT&T UNIX Systems Laboratory when Novell purchased USL. The SCO Group also owns all the products and property that belonged to SCO when Caldera purchased SCO (including the stuff SCO bought from Novell. It owns all the Caldera products and property. All in all, the SCO Group has a nice collection of products and properties.
For example, a February 1993 press release issued by Novell states: USL develops and markets the UNIX System V operating system, the TUXEDO* Enterprise Transaction Processing System, the C++ Programming Language System and other standards-based system software products to the worldwide computer industry.
They also mention COFF and ELF formats...
Full article :
http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_S tory01.html#libraries_included
What we need is third-party security patches and hotfixes for Microsoft products. Ones that don't change the EULA.
This is interesting, what would happen if windows dll's where replaced in a similar manner to the way that wine does it, kind of like open sourcing windows bit by bit.
Slashdot Mirror
All GPL means is that you have the right to tinker with your GPL'd software in any way you want, and redistribute anything you come up with.
... What if the closed source product isn't even under their control, or contains DRM?
Thats exactly it. You have the ability to modify the software in any way you want. As long as you make an offer to distribute the source when you distribute the binaries.
You're missing the point here, in much the same way Linus does, over and over. I don't think GPLv3 is intended to kill DRM entirely -- you can
certainly have a bit of proprietary software which uses DRM, and it can talk to GPL'd software. The point is, you're not allowed to use DRM to
force only one specific version of the GPL'd software to run.
Linus is not missing the point, I think you do not understand his point of view,
You said it above, you can do anything you want with the source, but Linus goes further and says "not the hardware". As long as changes to the source are redistributed, Linus does not care if the binary will not run on *that* particular piece of hardware anymore, if thats a problem then don't buy the product.
The GPL-3 would make it all but impossible to implement effective DRM on hardware using GPL'd code.
Adding requirements to distribute keys would kill any future for Linux in parts of the embedded space.
Its all about the source. Not keys, not DRM and not limitations on use, hence no GPL-3 for the kernel.
There is no stable release any more, this is what this new numbering system is meant to replace.
Since 2.6.x a new development model was introduced whereby patches to the kernel were accepted even if they caused the kernel to become more unstable, exactly the same as the development series (ie. what would have been 2.7.x). The reason for this is to stop patches becoming stale while they are waiting to be accepted and to reduce back/forward porting, this is what the new numbering scheme is meant to address.
From now on there is no seperate 2.even is stable and 2.odd is development, there is one branch of the kernel which is developed and at some point in time that branch will appear stable enough to become a release. At that point it will become 2.6.x and development will then accelerate again (eventually becoming 2.6.x+1) leaving the 2.6.x to be maintained by the new $sucker maintainer, who may release minor updates to fix small problems, but no new features hence the 2.6.x.y numbering.
When 2.6.x+1 is released it will become the new 2.6.x.y release.
Makes a profit? How do you measure that? Our favorite example of One-Click Shopping doesn't exactly generate concrete revenue ...
Exactly. It should never have been allowed as a patent (easy shot, I know). The only claim they have is that they were the first to use it (maybe).
A patent allows the patent holder sole rights to the control of his invention in return for the public disclosure of the method of implementation.
This control was originally a tool that allowed the holder to make a return on investment of time and money and allow them to profit from the publication.
If there is no profit to be made why give them a patent? the protection offered (on *this* method) by a patent is nil, it may serve to deny competing implementations but that was never the intention of the patent system.
Your right, profit is subjective in this case, I agree it's hard to measure.
If they really want to keep their idea from being copied (esp. software/algorithms) then it should stay with the inventors as an industrial/trade secret and use NDA's to control if they license.
Business processes could be published and copyrighted, but that would still allow for competition.
People should be free to independantly implement ideas/algorithms/software without hitting the brick wall of patent litigation especially when there there is only one way to implement some idea.
I think that a lot of patents are obvious in design and they are only patents because someone thought to obtain the patent in the first place.
With Regards to the situation in Europe, it's the same old tactic, the same tactic thats been used to get the European countries to join the Euro. When the people say NO ask them again, then again, then again. Eventually they get the desired result and stop asking at that point.
That is a nice idea, but how would you propose to come up with the length of the patent?
Give them three years to come up with a use for their patent, then for each year that their patented idea actually makes a profit (including licensing), allow them to utilize the patents protections for a set time period.
This way they actually have to use it or lose it, also if it's any good then people _will_ license its use.
Using the latest XFree it's quite simple to set up TTF font use and the increased quality is worth the effort, I build my own so I'm not sure how it's done in the distribution world.
There are good quality true type fonts to be found and wine can be useful when extracting fonts that are contained in executable archives.
MM
But SCO have said that any of their customers using their current Linux product will not be affected, they continue to provide support - in the full knowledge that the linux kernel they are using (which *has* to be released under the GPL) contains their supposed IP. Either the product they supplied is under the GPL or it's not.
If they say it's not under the GPL then they are clearly in breach of the terms of the GPL for using GPL code and are open to legal action, if it is under the GPL then SCO can have no complaint, their code is open.
If they continue to press the fact that the code is theirs then they have to withdraw Linux from their customers because it violates the terms of the GPL.
It's no longer good faith, SCO continue to support a distributed work, derived from the GPL, without releasing their included IP under the GPL.
It's as if I know my car is in the garage when I sell and then try and claim ownership of the house because of that fact.
Heres a quote from an article at internews that gives an idea why IBM may be taking a laid back attitude to this.
"IBM's position is that our contract is perpetual and irrevocable and there is nothing further to discuss," IBM spokeswoman Trink Guarino told internetnews.com Thursday. She added, "We do not see momentum slowing anywhere, either with AIX or Linux."
In a research note based on a meeting with Bill Zeitler, IBM senior vice president and group executive of the Systems Group, Deutsche Bank Securities analyst George Elling said Zeitler defended IBM's case against SCO by noting Big Blue's 700 existing or pending patents related to AIX.
700 existing or pending patents, do SCO know of those? what if the code is in AIX and Monterey?
How can IBM obtain patents on code that's supposed to be donated to SCO or is AIX completely seperate from SCOs code?
This is confusing, IBM are going to rip them to shreds.
Normally with an IP/Copyright issue you go for the little guy, get some cash and establish precedence, then go after the bigger fish. Unless of course your trying to annnoy some company and get them to buy you out.
Sorry, maybe I should have said that Linux was inspired by Minix. The creator of Minix, Andrew Tanenbaum wrote minix from scratch as a teaching aid, are you trying to say that he wrote mach too?. I also read his book which contained the source code to minix, that also made no reference to mach.
I would be interested to see where the minix that Linus was using was based on Mach.
How can you say this?
Although Linux originally started as a unix clone, it was derived from Minix which in turn was based on the unix methodology. But Linux has changed, grown, if it hadn't why would people now be using it?
Open source is different for exactly the reason that its open source, anyone can look it and they are free to change it. This means that the software is continually evolving - sometimes using multiple paths, with each contributing to the overall future of the software. Who knows what Linux will look like in another 10 years? but at least it can adapt, new hardware vendors can view the source and optimise their hardware/drivers ready for Linux and if needed the kernel itself can be changed to help accomodate them.
As other people have said any software can become tainted with other proprietry code, especially when you have source licenses from many
vendors used on one of your products.
Take for example the MSQL/Timeline patent issue.
How many people would be willing to start from scratch now? look how long the hurd has taken to emerge, and even now it uses code from Linux to help it take off.
Some would say that Gnome and KDE are just Windows wannabes, but for how long? again they will evolve over time as people demand new ideas and concepts.
So it's important that open source comes out of this mess as clean as possible because if it doesn't then important contributors may be scared off and thus reduce the speed at which the current open source movement is expanding.
This is purely a knee-jerk reaction by SCO^h^h^h Caldera to take as much as possible from our community when they realised that their business model had failed.
Here you will find the pdf of the Linux Kernel Internals, authored by Tigran Aivazian (tigran@veritas.com). Now, he has been submitting patches to the kernel for a long time.
He submitted patches for (among others)
Microcode updates
...)
iBCS patches
kgdb patches
Linux Implementation of SCO UnixWare BFS
and I'm sure a lot more, across a wide range of kernel versions (2.2/2.3/2.4
Why does this matter? Well his email used to be tigran@ocston.org. odd domain name, try reversing it.search and look at the first two results, then look here for more info about the first entry.
Before that his email was tigran@sco.org, but he
got a little paranoid
about it.
Searching google brings up patches supplied by him throughout the whole development cycle of 2.3/2.4 and more. He is directly connected to the author of the LKP on SCO Unix, draw your own conclusions here.
No, as someone else said in a previous SCO article, Cadlera (SCO) want Linux itself. They want to charge everybody a license fee for it's use and regain control over their perceived ownership of everything UNIX.
Thats why they are refusing to reveal the code, thats why they are now saying that it would be almost impossible to remove the offending code, they are trying to show that the Linux source has become 'polluted' with their UNIX code, they can smell the money (and so too can the investors).
Ok, its been said many times up to now, but. What if the code came from SCO themselves, no, hang on, *the original SCO* (not Caldera SCO).
Heres a link to an article written in May 2000, by the old SCO company and in it they say ...
SCO is expected to announce 32- and 64-bit versions of Linux for Intel-based servers, which will be available in the fourth quarter of this year. In early 2001, SCO plans to deliver a 32-bit Internet Infrastructure Edition that will come bundled with a Web server and other IP applications. The company is also working on a 64-bit edition for service providers, including ISPs and application service providers, which will feature special billing and management tools.
The company is also expected to explore the following areas:
* Building the Linux clustering capacity to be in line with SCO's NonStop Clusters technology, which scales to 12 or more boxes with advanced reliability for data and applications. Current Linux clustering technology is generally limited to two or four nodes.
* Beefing up Linux's symmetric multiprocessing capabilities. Currently the number of CPUs per Linux server is usually limited to eight; UnixWare can run on servers with up to 32 CPUs.
* Managing multiple Linux servers as well as applications from a single console as if they were a single system.
* Improving security and the ability of Linux to handle applications such as e-mail, including instant messaging.
* Adding online support services and documentation.
Crucial to the company's success will be ensuring that it rapidly offers adequate device drivers and APIs to let independent software vendors port existing SCO Unix applications to SCO's Linux, says David Boyes of Dimension Enterprise, a data center design and testing firm in Herndon, Va. His company runs a variety of Linux applications, mostly using TurboLinux.
Hmmm... What are Calderas claims again? Check that name :).
Ok, if SCO were hacking Linux at this point why didn't they raise the flag then? They were working on Linux, they had both sets of sources, Calderas claim is that the code is from the Early 80's and relates to NUMA? I doubt it, Ok, x86 SMP, err I doubt that too, What does that leave on a (x86) processor from the early 80's? This time period was right in the middle of 2.4 development.
And lastly back to an old quote ...
MozillaQuest Magazine: When Darl said "substantial System V code showing up in Linux", did he mean the Linux kernel, the GNU/Linux operating system, a Linux distribution(s), or Linux applications? If it is in the kernel, which kernel version(s)?
Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux kernel. (Emphasis added.)
Talk about Bullshit.
Wasn't OpenUNIX 8 (the rename of UnixWare 7, A.K.A. SVR5 UNIX) supposed to meld a lot of Linux and UNIX things. I don't think they violated any copyrights but it does show that SCO/Caldera was deep in the Linux world for a long time. How they just recently came up with this realization is still a mystery.
Yep, they wrote a linux personality toolkit (as someone else mentioned), but they say it was done using a cleanroom approach.
article at elreg
They are changing their story hour by hour. First they said that it was IBM who had used SCOs IP (used in the development of Monterey) to improve Linux, now they are expanding their claim to cover large portions of the 2.4 kernel, going back years, they must have known, they were developing monterey and one of their employees at least must have looked at the kernel source out of curiosity.
Somone mentioned that Christoph Hellwig is an ex SCO employee (don't know how true that is) but their's an interesting thread here.
This company has a one way ticket, when it's over I bet they wish they took the blue pill :).
From 'The Register' 22/08/2000
Scaldera vows a better Linux than Linux
SCO's Juergen Kienhoefer tells us that by mapping clone processes directly onto UnixWare's native threads, huge performance gains can be realised. "Basically thread creation is about a thousand times faster than on native Linux," he said. The performance boost could particularly benefit applications such as Domino, according to Kienhoefer. Other gains could be made by using UnixWare libraries, and he reckons that SETI at home shows a 4x improvement over native Linux, as it uses UnixWare's own maths libraries.
SCO/Caldera, or as we'll refer to them for convenience from now on, Scaldera intends to ship the environment by the end of the year. At the session, SCO officials said that the the environment amounts to around 40,000 lines of code, plus around 2m drawn from the real Linux kernel tree. This doesn't seem to be the case however, and see our front page for a detailed update. It supports Linux Binary Interface and APIs, says SCO, and provides device support too.
couldn't find the reference to the front page though.
Even if they never used the code in the end it is proof that they were fully aware of Linux internals. If they chose to distribute it under the GPL then they only have themselves to blame.
As so many have said, what if some code was borrowed from linux ...
Miles Barel, IBM's program director of Unix marketing, acknowledges that Linux could overtake Monterey as the Unix platform of choice, possibly within three years. "In the interim, IBM will build Linux compatibility into Monterey," says Barel. "And if Linux does take over completely, Monterey users will continue to be able to run their apps."
information week
The date of the article matches some of SCOs claims
I haven't seen a reference to this article yet?
Are they claiming ownership of C++??
The SCO Group now owns the entire bundle of products that were the property of the AT&T UNIX Systems Laboratory when Novell purchased USL. The SCO Group also owns all the products and property that belonged to SCO when Caldera purchased SCO (including the stuff SCO bought from Novell. It owns all the Caldera products and property. All in all, the SCO Group has a nice collection of products and properties.
For example, a February 1993 press release issued by Novell states: USL develops and markets the UNIX System V operating system, the TUXEDO* Enterprise Transaction Processing System, the C++ Programming Language System and other standards-based system software products to the worldwide computer industry.
They also mention COFF and ELF formats ...
Full article : http://www.mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-01_S tory01.html#libraries_included
NOOOOOO!!!!!
Now I have to rewrite my patent application, I knew I should have submitted it yesterday.
What we need is third-party security patches and hotfixes for Microsoft products. Ones that don't change the EULA.
This is interesting, what would happen if windows dll's where replaced in a similar manner to the way that wine does it, kind of like open sourcing windows bit by bit.