Seems to me they should be listed on a boatload more if they really claim all Unix System V copyrights.
FYI, Novell has 521 items they registered their claim to copyright on. None of which are Unix System V. Unix System Labs is indicated as the author/claimant for about 75 items, including items dealing with Unix System V release 4.2
Seems slightly strange to me that SCO would not have requested updated records for prior Unix copyrights to add their claim
This technology will never be able to see inside your house (unless you live in a tent). The wood/brick/wallboard would require a much higher energy to penetrate. They would have to be penetrated twice, the incident x-rays and the reflected x-rays. If the x-rays had low enough energy to reflect off your stuff, they would not have sufficent energy to pass back through the wall. Now they could put a detector on the opposite side of your house, blast it with high energy x-rays, and image anything - but I think you would notice that (large truck parked in front of your house with big cables conneced to power grid, large screen set up behind your house, etc).
"The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code. It doesn't matter that they were already distributing it, they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it."
SCO can't claim they did not know what was in Linux and still hope to hold customer confidence - if they do they admit they sold customers a product (which they claim to produce portions of) without performing *any* due diligence with respect to the product.
Essentially they would be saying, "here is a computer program, run it, we don't know what it does. Have a nice day."
I think once SCO *sold* its first copy of Linux, and included the source code, they lost the ability to claim they did not intend to distribute the code.
If they redistributed kernels patched with their IP - tough; they should have checked the source *before* **they** distributed it.
The guy spends his time playing a video game. He skipped higher education because it was too "limiting."
This is one guy who is *not* looking for intellectual stimulation. He will fit right in in Vegas (on the street with the rest of the "hardcore gamers").
The article claims SCO developed the first Unix for Intel chips. IIRC AT&T sold an intel based pc that ran System V Unix way back in 1986 (I sold a few of those back then).
Kind of makes me doubt the other facts in the story.....
I tried this approach (years ago with a company that was just recently sold in pieces to pad the CEO's retirement fund). I discussed the situation with my manager, stated (calmly) that this would not be the situation in a year. He agreed - said they would hire someone to help out. Several times during the following year I was told the position was approved, and would be posted. Despite the continued assurances from my manager, and his manager, the situation only got worse. I walked (*AFTER* finding a new job), they tried to grab a replacement from the "internal pool" of IT people. About two months later I checked in with my old collegues - one of the systems I maintained (which they *demanded* 100% uptime from, was mission critical to about 300 people in several countries) had crashed and was down for over a week.
They never did post for that position AFAIK.
Later I found out they divided my job functions among 3 people (two new and one existing). All I wanted them to do was hire one person to lighten the load a bit.......
Guess it just goes to show ya, the Universe has a way of getting eve
The article says he is the Director of NASA Ames research center, not that he *is* a rocket scientist. He is not a rocket scientist. His bio (http://www.arc.nasa.gov/about_ames/hubbard.html) from NASA shows him to be a long time administrator, with his original scientific background in radiation detection materials and devices.
So will people *PLEASE* quit insulting rocket scientists.
If SCO can show that the code in Linux is equal to the Unix code, they need to prove which came first. Maybe the Unix coders pulled it from Linux. Then SCO would be in violation of GPL for not providing the source code!!!
So what does this give me that I can't get with the Hurd? Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc. that go along with that design. Oh yeah - if I use this I get to support a company that will decide what I need in my os (or at least what I need to have supported in my os). Sorry, they are just a bit late for me. Five years ago I would have been all over it, now it is just too late.
1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
2.1 (a) SCO grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY, each SOURCE CODE PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT, solely for personal use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE through this SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT and to prepare DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT based on such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, provided that any such modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that contains any part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this AGREEMENT is treated hereunder the same as such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
(b) Personal use is limited to noncommercial uses. Any such use made in connection with the development of enhancements or modifications to SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS is permitted only if (i) neither the results of such use nor any enhancement or modification so developed is intended primarily for the benefit of a third party and (ii) any copy of any such result, enhancement or modification, furnished by LICENSEE to a third party holder of an equivalent Software License with SCO where permitted by Section 8.4(b) below, is furnished for no more than the cost of reproduction and shipping. Any such copy that includes any portion of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT shall be subject tothe provisions of such Section 8.4.
(c) LICENSEE may produce printed and on-line copies of documentation included with the SOURCE CODE PRODUCT as necessary for use with the DESIGNATED CPUs. All copies must include a legally sufficient copyright notice and a statement that the documents include a portion or all of SCO's copyrighted documentation, which is being reproduced with permission.
(d) Commercial use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS or of any result, enhancement or modification associated with the use of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS under this AGREEMENT is not permitted. Such commercial use is permissible only pursuant to the terms of an appropriate commercial software agreement between SCO or a corporate affiliate thereof and LICENSEE. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, commercial use includes, but is not limited to, furnishing copies to third parties in a manner not permitted by Section 8.4(b).
8.4 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT in confidence for SCO. LICENSEE further agrees that should it make such disclosure of any or all of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder, LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each such person to whom any such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence and have each such person sign a confidentiality agreement containing restrictions on disclosure substantially similar to those set forth herein.
If LICENSEE should become aware of a violation of SCO's intellectual property and/or proprietary rights, LICENSEE shall promptly notify SCO and cooperate with SCO in such enforcement.
If information relating to a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this AGREEMENT at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE, LICENSEE's obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such time.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.4(a), LICENSEE may make available copies of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, either in modified or unmodified form, to third parties in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY having Source Code Licenses of the same scope herewith from SCO for the same SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, if and only if (i) LICENSEE first requests verification of the status of the recipient by contacting SCO at the address contained in Section 8.8(a) or other number specified by SCO, and (ii) SCO gives written verification of the recipient's software license status. LICENSEE shall maintain a record of each such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT made available.
8.5 On SCO's request, but not more frequently than annually, LICENSEE shall furnish to SCO a statement, listing the location, type and serial number of the DESIGNATED CPU hereunder and stating that the use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT has been reviewed and that each such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is being used solely on the DESIGNATED CPU (or temporarily on a back-up CPU) for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS in full compliance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
I don't find this to be *free*. I cannot use the software for business purposes, and can't give a copy to whomever I wish. I also have to furnish SCO with the serial number of the computer it is installed on. They also specifically exclude Unix System V, and restirct the license to 16 or 32 bit implementations.
Spotteddog
Sorry for the long quote - that legalese stuff shure adds to the word count.
So will EVERYone please stand up and tell me where they can (or could) get Unix for FREE? Those who voiced an answer, please remain standing ; an AT&T - Bell Labs - Lucent Technologies - whatever they call themselves now security official and lawyer will be with you shortly.
Unix was an AT&T product (or we paid them a bunch of money for nothing all those years ago......)
It has been a pain since Apple started doing it and a pain when Micro$oft copied the process. What ever happened to goo old error messages like "Unable to obtain an IP address from your DHCP server" Guess those kind of messages are too explicit for children.
If you can't assign an IP address from the proper range, you shouldn't be allowed to install a computer on a network.
Don't forget - if it was hard to write it should be hard to use!!
Slashdot Mirror
According to the US Copyright Office's online database (http://www.copyright.gov/records/cohm.html), the SCO Group, Inc. holds one copyright:
1. Registration Number: TX-5-705-356
Title: UNIX system V, release 4.1ES.
Description: Computer program.
Note: Printout (20 p.) only deposited.
Claimant: the SCO Group, Inc.
Created: 1991
Published: 27Jun91
Registered: 30Jun03
Author on © Application: UNIX System Laboratories, Inc., employer for hire.
Previous Related Version: Prev. reg. 1992, TXu 510-028, et al.
Claim Limit: NEW MATTER: revisions.
Special Codes: 1/C
Seems to me they should be listed on a boatload more if they really claim all Unix System V copyrights.
FYI, Novell has 521 items they registered their claim to copyright on. None of which are Unix System V. Unix System Labs is indicated as the author/claimant for about 75 items, including items dealing with Unix System V release 4.2
Seems slightly strange to me that SCO would not have requested updated records for prior Unix copyrights to add their claim
This technology will never be able to see inside your house (unless you live in a tent). The wood/brick/wallboard would require a much higher energy to penetrate. They would have to be penetrated twice, the incident x-rays and the reflected x-rays. If the x-rays had low enough energy to reflect off your stuff, they would not have sufficent energy to pass back through the wall. Now they could put a detector on the opposite side of your house, blast it with high energy x-rays, and image anything - but I think you would notice that (large truck parked in front of your house with big cables conneced to power grid, large screen set up behind your house, etc).
You can't go back to voicestream - they don't exist anymore (they are T-Mobile now).
wOOt - I might find a job now since I know *both*
"The GPL simply falls by the wayside, since the copyright holder (SCO) NEVER INTENDED to distribute the code. It doesn't matter that they were already distributing it, they can argue that they were duped into distributing it because they didn't know what was in it."
SCO can't claim they did not know what was in Linux and still hope to hold customer confidence - if they do they admit they sold customers a product (which they claim to produce portions of) without performing *any* due diligence with respect to the product.
Essentially they would be saying, "here is a computer program, run it, we don't know what it does. Have a nice day."
I think once SCO *sold* its first copy of Linux, and included the source code, they lost the ability to claim they did not intend to distribute the code.
If they redistributed kernels patched with their IP - tough; they should have checked the source *before* **they** distributed it.
Don't forget - firewire is your friend to add those disks without opening the case/rebooting
The guy spends his time playing a video game. He skipped higher education because it was too "limiting."
This is one guy who is *not* looking for intellectual stimulation. He will fit right in in Vegas (on the street with the rest of the "hardcore gamers").
That's why he wore a towel
Why is it news? Because McNett has *never* made a mistake. Mistakes are made by other lesser people - like me :-)
The article claims SCO developed the first Unix for Intel chips. IIRC AT&T sold an intel based pc that ran System V Unix way back in 1986 (I sold a few of those back then).
Kind of makes me doubt the other facts in the story.....
I tried this approach (years ago with a company that was just recently sold in pieces to pad the CEO's retirement fund). I discussed the situation with my manager, stated (calmly) that this would not be the situation in a year. He agreed - said they would hire someone to help out. Several times during the following year I was told the position was approved, and would be posted. Despite the continued assurances from my manager, and his manager, the situation only got worse. I walked (*AFTER* finding a new job), they tried to grab a replacement from the "internal pool" of IT people. About two months later I checked in with my old collegues - one of the systems I maintained (which they *demanded* 100% uptime from, was mission critical to about 300 people in several countries) had crashed and was down for over a week.
They never did post for that position AFAIK.
Later I found out they divided my job functions among 3 people (two new and one existing). All I wanted them to do was hire one person to lighten the load a bit.......
Guess it just goes to show ya, the Universe has a way of getting eve
The article says he is the Director of NASA Ames research center, not that he *is* a rocket scientist. He is not a rocket scientist. His bio (http://www.arc.nasa.gov/about_ames/hubbard.html) from NASA shows him to be a long time administrator, with his original scientific background in radiation detection materials and devices.
So will people *PLEASE* quit insulting rocket scientists.
Those Boy Scouts of America sure do get around
If SCO can show that the code in Linux is equal to the Unix code, they need to prove which came first. Maybe the Unix coders pulled it from Linux. Then SCO would be in violation of GPL for not providing the source code!!!
What about those people who for religeous reasons cover their faces? Seems like a pretty big problem for facial recognition......
So since the X Box is a PIII 700+ MHZ with Nvidia graphics card, how long till RedHat ports to it??
Wouldn't that be a photon torpedo????
So what does this give me that I can't get with the Hurd? Neither is released as a stable product, both feature a microkernel and all the user space servers, etc. that go along with that design. Oh yeah - if I use this I get to support a company that will decide what I need in my os (or at least what I need to have supported in my os). Sorry, they are just a bit late for me. Five years ago I would have been all over it, now it is just too late.
spotteddog
Not so fast -
Here is some of the license document:
1.9 SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEM means a SCO software offering that is (i) specifically designed for a 16-Bit computer, or (ii) the 32V version, and (iii) specifically excludes UNIX System V and successor operating systems.
2. GRANT OF RIGHTS
2.1 (a) SCO grants to LICENSEE a personal, nontransferable and nonexclusive right to use, in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY, each SOURCE CODE PRODUCT identified in Section 3 of this AGREEMENT, solely for personal use (as restricted in Section 2.1(b)) and solely on or in conjunction with DESIGNATED CPUs, and/or Networks of CPUs, licensed by LICENSEE through this SPECIAL SOFTWARE LICENSE AGREEMENT for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. Such right to use includes the right to modify such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT and to prepare DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT based on such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, provided that any such modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that contains any part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this AGREEMENT is treated hereunder the same as such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT. SCO claims no ownership interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
(b) Personal use is limited to noncommercial uses. Any such use made in connection with the development of enhancements or modifications to SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS is permitted only if (i) neither the results of such use nor any enhancement or modification so developed is intended primarily for the benefit of a third party and (ii) any copy of any such result, enhancement or modification, furnished by LICENSEE to a third party holder of an equivalent Software License with SCO where permitted by Section 8.4(b) below, is furnished for no more than the cost of reproduction and shipping. Any such copy that includes any portion of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT shall be subject tothe provisions of such Section 8.4.
(c) LICENSEE may produce printed and on-line copies of documentation included with the SOURCE CODE PRODUCT as necessary for use with the DESIGNATED CPUs. All copies must include a legally sufficient copyright notice and a statement that the documents include a portion or all of SCO's copyrighted documentation, which is being reproduced with permission.
(d) Commercial use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS or of any result, enhancement or modification associated with the use of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS under this AGREEMENT is not permitted. Such commercial use is permissible only pursuant to the terms of an appropriate commercial software agreement between SCO or a corporate affiliate thereof and LICENSEE. For purposes of this AGREEMENT, commercial use includes, but is not limited to, furnishing copies to third parties in a manner not permitted by Section 8.4(b).
8.4 (a) LICENSEE agrees that it shall hold all parts of the SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT in confidence for SCO. LICENSEE further agrees that should it make such disclosure of any or all of such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS (including methods or concepts utilized therein) to anyone to whom such disclosure is necessary to the use for which rights are granted hereunder, LICENSEE shall appropriately notify each such person to whom any such disclosure is made that such disclosure is made in confidence and shall be kept in confidence and have each such person sign a confidentiality agreement containing restrictions on disclosure substantially similar to those set forth herein.
If LICENSEE should become aware of a violation of SCO's intellectual property and/or proprietary rights, LICENSEE shall promptly notify SCO and cooperate with SCO in such enforcement.
If information relating to a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT subject to this AGREEMENT at any time becomes available without restriction to the general public by acts not attributable to LICENSEE, LICENSEE's obligations under this section shall not apply to such information after such time.
(b) Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.4(a), LICENSEE may make available copies of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, either in modified or unmodified form, to third parties in the AUTHORIZED COUNTRY having Source Code Licenses of the same scope herewith from SCO for the same SOURCE CODE PRODUCT, if and only if (i) LICENSEE first requests verification of the status of the recipient by contacting SCO at the address contained in Section 8.8(a) or other number specified by SCO, and (ii) SCO gives written verification of the recipient's software license status. LICENSEE shall maintain a record of each such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT made available.
8.5 On SCO's request, but not more frequently than annually, LICENSEE shall furnish to SCO a statement, listing the location, type and serial number of the DESIGNATED CPU hereunder and stating that the use by LICENSEE of SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS subject to this AGREEMENT has been reviewed and that each such SOURCE CODE PRODUCT is being used solely on the DESIGNATED CPU (or temporarily on a back-up CPU) for such SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS in full compliance with the provisions of this AGREEMENT.
I don't find this to be *free*. I cannot use the software for business purposes, and can't give a copy to whomever I wish. I also have to furnish SCO with the serial number of the computer it is installed on. They also specifically exclude Unix System V, and restirct the license to 16 or 32 bit implementations.
Spotteddog
Sorry for the long quote - that legalese stuff shure adds to the word count.
OK,
So will EVERYone please stand up and tell me where they can (or could) get Unix for FREE? Those who voiced an answer, please remain standing ; an AT&T - Bell Labs - Lucent Technologies - whatever they call themselves now security official and lawyer will be with you shortly.
Unix was an AT&T product (or we paid them a bunch of money for nothing all those years ago......)
Spotteddog
If the people turning 18 are just now finding out that politicians are idiots, the world has much to fear.
Spotteddog
It has been a pain since Apple started doing it and a pain when Micro$oft copied the process. What ever happened to goo old error messages like "Unable to obtain an IP address from your DHCP server" Guess those kind of messages are too explicit for children.
If you can't assign an IP address from the proper range, you shouldn't be allowed to install a computer on a network.
Don't forget - if it was hard to write it should be hard to use!!