From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 13:19:14 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9111116A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:19:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from thuis.piwebs.com (217-19-20-186.dsl.cambrium.nl [217.19.20.186]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id D9E5F43FDF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:19:12 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from avleeuwen@piwebs.com) Received: (qmail 48291 invoked by uid 85); 18 Nov 2003 21:19:25 -0000 Received: from avleeuwen@piwebs.com by thuis.piwebs.com by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc1 (uvscan: v4.2.40/v4288. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 1.196739 secs); 18 Nov 2003 21:19:25 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.0.110) (192.168.0.110) by 0 with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 21:19:23 -0000 From: Arjan van Leeuwen To: advocacy@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:19:07 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_Nzou/8ZEwiKm6U9"; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Subject: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:19:14 -0000 --Boundary-02=_Nzou/8ZEwiKm6U9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline =46rom http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=3D03/11/18/1742216 : (about the teleconference today) I, for one, don't care how SCO pays its counsel. But I do care about=20 something new that came out of the teleconference.=20 SCO is going to attack the 1994 AT&T/BSD settlement. That's a very interest= ing=20 item that the few favored analysts (and only a select few journalists) who= =20 were allowed to ask questions failed to pick up on. Here's our take on why= =20 SCO is embarking on this new course of action: (read the article for more info) What to think of this? Arjan --Boundary-02=_Nzou/8ZEwiKm6U9 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA/uozN3Ym57eNCXiERAv6JAJ4jzV4CaEWeCD0IbdaVMun7iq8MpwCfeAq5 eWT8gZcFvD+EA0giiY65500= =+4Hu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Nzou/8ZEwiKm6U9-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 13:51:47 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9079716A4CF for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:51:47 -0800 (PST) Received: from shaft.techsupport.co.uk (shaft.techsupport.co.uk [212.250.77.214]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7216643FE5 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 13:51:45 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from setantae@submonkey.net) Received: from cpc2-cdif3-6-0-cust204.cdif.cable.ntl.com ([81.103.67.204] helo=shrike.submonkey.net ident=mailnull) by shaft.techsupport.co.uk with esmtp (TLSv1:DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1AMDl9-000Kc8-Km; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:51:43 +0000 Received: from setantae by shrike.submonkey.net with local (Exim 4.24; FreeBSD 4.9) id 1AMDk2-00054M-RR; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:34 +0000 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:34 +0000 From: Ceri Davies To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> Mail-Followup-To: Ceri Davies , Arjan van Leeuwen , advocacy@freebsd.org References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="QxIEt88oQPsT6QmF" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> X-PGP: finger ceri@FreeBSD.org User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i Sender: Ceri Davies cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:51:47 -0000 --QxIEt88oQPsT6QmF Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: Content-Description: signed data > From http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=3D03/11/18/1742216 : >=20 > (about the teleconference today) > I, for one, don't care how SCO pays its counsel. But I do care about=20 > something new that came out of the teleconference.=20 >=20 > SCO is going to attack the 1994 AT&T/BSD settlement. That's a very intere= sting=20 > item that the few favored analysts (and only a select few journalists) wh= o=20 > were allowed to ask questions failed to pick up on. Here's our take on wh= y=20 > SCO is embarking on this new course of action: >=20 > (read the article for more info) >=20 > What to think of this? It's difficult to say when the only quote on the page is "broad and deep". I would rather see exactly what SCO said regarding the 1994 settlement before making my mind up, but my gut reaction is that someone has been at the crack pipe again. Ceri --=20 --QxIEt88oQPsT6QmF Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/upQqocfcwTS3JF8RAgIpAJ4p7iUMFhVWBGL8b6htzMNQFCj9PwCfVUp/ HTi+tov/DV2OlIY+m3ulwZA= =Eqpo -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --QxIEt88oQPsT6QmF-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 14:02:17 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EF23416A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:02:17 -0800 (PST) Received: from pittgoth.com (14.zlnp1.xdsl.nauticom.net [209.195.149.111]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F2DA843FCB for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:02:10 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Received: from localhost (acs-24-154-239-203.zoominternet.net [24.154.239.203]) by pittgoth.com (8.12.9/8.12.9) with SMTP id hAIM28vd093517; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:02:09 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from trhodes@FreeBSD.org) Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:02:07 -0500 From: Tom Rhodes To: Ceri Davies Message-Id: <20031118170207.754515ff.trhodes@FreeBSD.org> In-Reply-To: <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118215034.GN385@submonkey.net> X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: advocacy@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:02:18 -0000 On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:50:34 +0000 Ceri Davies wrote: > On Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > Content-Description: signed data > > From http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/18/1742216 : > > > > (about the teleconference today) > > I, for one, don't care how SCO pays its counsel. But I do care about > > something new that came out of the teleconference. > > > > SCO is going to attack the 1994 AT&T/BSD settlement. That's a very interesting > > item that the few favored analysts (and only a select few journalists) who > > were allowed to ask questions failed to pick up on. Here's our take on why > > SCO is embarking on this new course of action: > > > > (read the article for more info) > > > > What to think of this? > > It's difficult to say when the only quote on the page is "broad and > deep". I would rather see exactly what SCO said regarding the 1994 > settlement before making my mind up, but my gut reaction is that someone > has been at the crack pipe again. Following Ceri's lead here, I agree that an outcome is very unpredictable at this time. Although, I'm wondering how plausable it is to "attack" something that happened almost ten years ago. I could see that happening if it was "unjust", but what merits "unjust" in a lawsuit of this kind? I'm not a law student, or anything else but I had to give an opinion. -- Tom Rhodes From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 14:23:51 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C98BB16A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:23:51 -0800 (PST) Received: from pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl (pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl [217.97.36.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id DF5EB43F3F for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 14:23:49 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl) Received: (qmail 18945 invoked by uid 1000); 18 Nov 2003 22:24:46 -0000 Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:24:46 +0100 From: Michal Pasternak To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Michal Pasternak List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 22:23:51 -0000 Arjan van Leeuwen [Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100]: > What to think of this? Depends. Linux is (over)hyped these days. Everyone is talking about Linux, big corporations want to use and develop it (Sun, IBM). SCO also surfs on the Linux wave to merely punch up it's stock value. BSD still seems to be less recognized by technical laymen (eg. marketing people). So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it be? No hype, no media, no big corporation to attack - no profit for them. If profit is all they want, they will not attack BSD systems. Why should they? But. What if they want something else - eg. what if they are only a tool, financed by some other corporation, which has to spread FUD and eventually make problems for whole opensource software? It would make sense only if the target is GNU: both Linux and X11-desktop GNU-licensed software, which is already a potential threat to some other, closed-source, commercial-desktop-producing company. It would be quite nonsense to try to destroy software project like BSD - you can easily incorporate all the code into your own software (the license allows that!) So, in my opinion, in both cases BSDs will be left untouched. -- Michal Pasternak :: http://pasternak.w.lub.pl From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 15:31:23 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E708016A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:31:23 -0800 (PST) Received: from thuis.piwebs.com (217-19-20-186.dsl.cambrium.nl [217.19.20.186]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 4BAC043FD7 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 15:31:22 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from avleeuwen@piwebs.com) Received: (qmail 49953 invoked by uid 85); 18 Nov 2003 23:31:35 -0000 Received: from avleeuwen@piwebs.com by thuis.piwebs.com by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc1 (uvscan: v4.2.40/v4288. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 1.208149 secs); 18 Nov 2003 23:31:35 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.0.110) (192.168.0.110) by 0 with SMTP; 18 Nov 2003 23:31:33 -0000 From: Arjan van Leeuwen To: Michal Pasternak Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:31:16 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> In-Reply-To: <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_Hvqu/sq8+LZhut/"; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311190031.19174.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 18 Nov 2003 23:31:24 -0000 --Boundary-02=_Hvqu/sq8+LZhut/ Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline On Tuesday 18 November 2003 23:24, Michal Pasternak wrote: > Arjan van Leeuwen [Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100]: > > What to think of this? > > Depends. > > Linux is (over)hyped these days. Everyone is talking about Linux, big > corporations want to use and develop it (Sun, IBM). SCO also surfs on the > Linux wave to merely punch up it's stock value. BSD still seems to be less > recognized by technical laymen (eg. marketing people). > > So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD > systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it be? > > No hype, no media, no big corporation to attack - no profit for them. The article seems to imply that by attacking the AT&T/BSDi settlement, SCO= =20 would have more power over Linux source code (as some linux source code als= o=20 comes from BSD). That is their angle. Also, they could attack Apple (?). > > If profit is all they want, they will not attack BSD systems. Why should > they? > > But. > > What if they want something else - eg. what if they are only a tool, > financed by some other corporation, which has to spread FUD and eventually > make problems for whole opensource software? > > It would make sense only if the target is GNU: both Linux and X11-desktop > GNU-licensed software, which is already a potential threat to some other, > closed-source, commercial-desktop-producing company. It would be quite > nonsense to try to destroy software project like BSD - you can easily > incorporate all the code into your own software (the license allows that!) > > So, in my opinion, in both cases BSDs will be left untouched. Arjan --Boundary-02=_Hvqu/sq8+LZhut/ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA/uqvH3Ym57eNCXiERApDiAKCQ3TYcCrhAkdb4my6pTtNRHdS2CQCfUspH gJERK/yndkThSe/jhOzSwi4= =E4gk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_Hvqu/sq8+LZhut/-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 16:13:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E161316A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from vsmtp4.tin.it (vsmtp4.tin.it [212.216.176.224]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D5D7743F93 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 16:13:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it) Received: from workstation (213.45.252.102) by vsmtp4.tin.it (7.0.019) id 3F8C844B012BDDA3 for advocacy@freebsd.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:13:31 +0100 Message-ID: <000701c3ae32$04338930$66fc2dd5@workstation> From: ".VWV." To: References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:13:53 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 00:13:36 -0000 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michal Pasternak" To: "Arjan van Leeuwen" Cc: Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2003 23:24 Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? > So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD > systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it be? > > No hype, no media, no big corporation to attack - no profit for them. > > If profit is all they want, they will not attack BSD systems. Why should they? Moreover, what's the real counterpart to attack? It's a kind of terrorism, they especially want to make disappear open-source from the companies' advertising. They have already obtained this, stopping the IBM's campaigns about Linux. This has been otherwise useful to stop the overrating of Linux, whilst as for FreeBSD it will give no effect at all. .VWV. From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 17:10:38 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 94A7F16A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:10:38 -0800 (PST) Received: from ozlabs.org (ozlabs.org [203.10.76.45]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 435F943F93 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 17:10:37 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from grog@lemis.com) Received: from blackwater.lemis.com (blackwater.lemis.com [192.109.197.80]) by ozlabs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F6712BD32 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 12:10:35 +1100 (EST) Received: by blackwater.lemis.com (Postfix, from userid 1004) id 23B97511FA; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:40:33 +1030 (CST) Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 11:40:33 +1030 From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031119011033.GI8149@wantadilla.lemis.com> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> <200311190031.19174.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311190031.19174.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i Organization: The FreeBSD Project Phone: +61-8-8388-8286 Fax: +61-8-8388-8725 Mobile: +61-418-838-708 WWW-Home-Page: http://www.FreeBSD.org/ X-PGP-Fingerprint: 9A1B 8202 BCCE B846 F92F 09AC 22E6 F290 507A 4223 cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 01:10:38 -0000 --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Wednesday, 19 November 2003 at 0:31:16 +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > On Tuesday 18 November 2003 23:24, Michal Pasternak wrote: >> So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD >> systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it b= e? >> >> No hype, no media, no big corporation to attack - no profit for them. > > The article seems to imply that by attacking the AT&T/BSDi settlement, SCO > would have more power over Linux source code (as some linux source code a= lso > comes from BSD). That is their angle. Also, they could attack Apple (?). It would be nice if you'd quote the text which you find suspicious. What I see is: (link) Newsletter Sign Up Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.=20 >> If profit is all they want, they will not attack BSD systems. Why should >> they? >> >> But. >> >> What if they want something else - eg. what if they are only a tool, >> financed by some other corporation, which has to spread FUD and eventual= ly >> make problems for whole opensource software? Yes, this seems reasonable. They don't need to attach BSD in court--indeed, they'd have difficulty finding somebody to serve the writ to. Also, less than two years ago they explicitly went beyond the terms of the settlement and released all the disputed code under a BSD-like licence. See http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ for more details. So why do this? I'm currently guessing that SCO needs a steady stream of press announcements to maintain their stock price. My personal bet is that IBM is going to drag out the case forever, like they've done before. SCO can't afford that; they'll self-destruct. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers. --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/usMJIubykFB6QiMRAisyAKCMTF01WkA2EvcDc4048werUkUaaQCgtTF8 sfHYbw5IyqEyuN6WOcu0nzE= =4dn8 -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --l0l+eSofNeLXHSnY-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Nov 18 21:03:42 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B051716A4CE for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:03:42 -0800 (PST) Received: from pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl (pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl [217.97.36.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 1CF9443F93 for ; Tue, 18 Nov 2003 21:03:41 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl) Received: (qmail 22335 invoked by uid 1000); 19 Nov 2003 05:04:35 -0000 Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 06:04:35 +0100 From: Michal Pasternak To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031119050435.GA22285@pasternak.w.lub.pl> References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Michal Pasternak List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 05:03:42 -0000 Arjan van Leeuwen [Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100]: Content-Description: signed data > From http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/11/18/1742216 : [...] > SCO is going to attack the 1994 AT&T/BSD settlement. Details here: http://www.windley.com/2003/11/18.html#a919 Anyway, having everything in CVS since beginning still makes BSD situation much better, than Linux. They started using central repository around 2.5.x, and by that time Linux was already over 20 MB of gzipped sources, and - in my opinion - there's rare chance to proove who has been responsible for what. There's nothing to be afraid of. -- Michal Pasternak :: http://pasternak.w.lub.pl From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 10:52:21 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4C1DE16A4CE for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:52:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail.speakeasy.net (mail5.speakeasy.net [216.254.0.205]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21E1B43FCB for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 10:52:20 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Received: (qmail 8692 invoked from network); 19 Nov 2003 18:52:18 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO server.baldwin.cx) ([216.27.160.63]) (envelope-sender )encrypted SMTP for ; 19 Nov 2003 18:52:18 -0000 Received: from laptop.baldwin.cx (gw1.twc.weather.com [216.133.140.1]) by server.baldwin.cx (8.12.9/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAJIptFn025268; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:51:58 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from jhb@FreeBSD.org) Message-ID: X-Mailer: XFMail 1.5.4 on FreeBSD X-Priority: 3 (Normal) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 13:51:53 -0500 (EST) From: John Baldwin To: Michal Pasternak X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 2.55 (1.174.2.19-2003-05-19-exp) cc: advocacy@freebsd.org cc: Arjan van Leeuwen Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 18:52:21 -0000 On 18-Nov-2003 Michal Pasternak wrote: > Arjan van Leeuwen [Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100]: >> What to think of this? > > Depends. > > Linux is (over)hyped these days. Everyone is talking about Linux, big > corporations want to use and develop it (Sun, IBM). SCO also surfs on the > Linux wave to merely punch up it's stock value. BSD still seems to be less > recognized by technical laymen (eg. marketing people). > > So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD > systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it be? Apple. -- John Baldwin <>< http://www.FreeBSD.org/~jhb/ "Power Users Use the Power to Serve!" - http://www.FreeBSD.org/ From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Wed Nov 19 15:51:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id F3E5C16A4D9 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:51:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from smtp08.wxs.nl (smtp08.wxs.nl [195.121.6.40]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3366843FF9 for ; Wed, 19 Nov 2003 15:51:31 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from akruijff@www.kruijff.org) Received: from kruij557.speed.planet.nl (ipd50a97ba.speed.planet.nl [213.10.151.186]) by smtp08.wxs.nl (iPlanet Messaging Server 5.2 HotFix 1.14 (built Mar 18 2003)) with ESMTP id <0HOM00LOTI79P1@smtp08.wxs.nl> for advocacy@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:49:57 +0100 (MET) Received: from Alex.lan (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by kruij557.speed.planet.nl (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAJNpXub003114; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:51:33 +0100 (CET envelope-from akruijff@Alex.lan) Received: (from akruijff@localhost) by Alex.lan (8.12.9p2/8.12.9/Submit) id hAJNpWOk003113; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:51:32 +0100 (CET envelope-from akruijff) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 00:51:32 +0100 From: Alex de Kruijff In-reply-to: <000701c3ae32$04338930$66fc2dd5@workstation> To: ".VWV." Message-id: <20031119235132.GA2410@dds.nl> MIME-version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i References: <200311182219.09828.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <20031118222445.GA18709@pasternak.w.lub.pl> <000701c3ae32$04338930$66fc2dd5@workstation> cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2003 23:51:58 -0000 On Wed, Nov 19, 2003 at 01:13:53AM +0100, .VWV. wrote: > > It's a kind of terrorism This has nothing to do with terrorism. They lack the politic motive and there only means to figth are the courts. -- Alex Articles based on solutions that I use: http://www.kruijff.org/alex/index.php?dir=docs/FreeBSD/ From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 04:56:54 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B96AC16A4CE; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:56:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net (heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net [207.217.120.189]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B37AC43FBD; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:56:53 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tlambert2@mindspring.com) Received: from user-2ivfikl.dialup.mindspring.com ([165.247.202.149] helo=mindspring.com) by heron.mail.pas.earthlink.net with asmtp (SSLv3:RC4-MD5:128) (Exim 3.33 #1) id 1AMoMb-0006AV-00; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:56:51 -0800 Message-ID: <3FBCB95B.44193DF2@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 04:53:47 -0800 From: Terry Lambert X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.79 [en] (Win98; U) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: John Baldwin References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-ELNK-Trace: b1a02af9316fbb217a47c185c03b154d40683398e744b8a4d7caf28e3871cac315ba37fcb391a0cd666fa475841a1c7a350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org cc: Arjan van Leeuwen Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:56:54 -0000 John Baldwin wrote: > On 18-Nov-2003 Michal Pasternak wrote: > > Arjan van Leeuwen [Tue, Nov 18, 2003 at 10:19:07PM +0100]: > >> What to think of this? > > > > So, who would be attacked by SCO in case they decide to run against BSD > > systems? Which one of big-bucks-worldwide-famous corporations would it be? > > Apple. Unlikely. A more likely target would be Cisco Systems or practically any company using TCP/IP, given SCO's theory of what constitutes a derivative work. For the most part, however, the 1994 settlement agreement is unassailable from a lot of different perspectives: 1) It's a settlement agreement which both parties agreed to be legally binding. An attempt to overturn it would open them to a Contempt of Court charge, at a minimum. 2) USL was in violation of UCB Copyright on many printed materials; reopening this would make SCO subject to the counterclaim of copyright infringement. If they lost, they would b liable for collecting every scrap of paper on which the material or derivative works have been printed. How many Ultrix manuals did DEC print? 3) Much of the code in SVR4.x was imported from the Net/2 sources out of Berkeley. Almost all of the ntworking. They will have a hard time proving provenance of their code. 4) Part of the counterclaim's cause of action was Copyright and license violation by USL, by virtue of removal of the Copyright and license statements in the header files. 5) Much of the code that makes up the SVR4 networking code was developed under contract to DARPA. Despite the recent slapping of a GPL on things developed with public funds, things developed with public funds are technically requied to be in the public domain (i.e. slapping a license on top of it before releasing it is not allowed). 6) One of the contributing factors to the settlement was the judge effectively telling USL "I think you have a very weak case, and will probably rule against you". 7) SCO is an assign of the rights in the UNIX source code, and those rights were specifically limited by the settlement agreement. SCO is therefore a priori bound by that agreement. 8) USL's primary legal theory at the time was "trade secret disclosure"; however, trade secret law states that no matter how a secret is disclosed, once it is disclosed, it is no longer a secret. This is generally useful in this case, since SCO can only go after the disclosing party for damages, and can not limit further propagation of the trade secret as if it were still secret (this is what they attempted to do); one of the judge's arguments was that they were attempting to obtain the moral quivalent of patent protection without disclosure, and that this attempt was unconstituional. 9) The FreeBSD and NetBSD projects, at least, have auditable records of every line of code added since the 4.4 BSD-Lite code was imported into the tree. For them to come after FreeBSD, as an example, they would need to overturn the settlement agrement, refile and win the case against UCB, and then prove that their trade secrets are still secret after having been published for over a decade and a half. 10) The UCB license was the old Western Electric license, which did not have a non-disclosure clause in its original form; hence the Lyon's book. 11) When UNIX was invented and first published, USL was a part of AT&T, and AT&T was specifically enjoined from making a profit of any kind off of software -- including a paper profit in the form of the accumulation of intellectual property -- as a result of the 1956 consent decree, under which they were legally acknowledged to be a monopoloy, and thereafter had to operate as a regulated monopoly. It's not clear that their sale of USL would permit USL to later claim intellectual property from conversion of illegally accumulated assets. 12) If SCO's theory of derivation is correct, then SVR4 is a derivative work of BSD UNIX and publically funded work. During the original case, a number of well known people offered to testify a witnesses on behalf of UCB; among these were Dennis Ritchie and Ken Thompson, as well as other prominent computer scientists with an involvement in UNIX since its inception. Another interesting thing that happened was that MIT offered to fund the defense, and offered their patent portfolio as ammunition (I still get annoyed at UCB turning down this offer). FWIW, I'm personally willing to testify as an expert witness as a former Novell/USG employee (Novell/USG was the UNIX Systems Group that was formed after the Novell acquisition of USL). I personally camped out in Mike DeFazio's (then Novell VP over Novell/USG, and the man who eventally dropped the lawsuit) office with a number of other Novell/USG employees to get 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD the same deal that USL was giving BSDI. Originally they sent a cease and desist order to everyone they could find, Jordan included, and there was no grace period for continuing to ship code (like BSDI was being allowed) until the 4.4-Lite code was made available. I'm pretty sure Jim Freeman and others would be similarly inclined. Finally, remember that civil cases are won or lost on the basis of a preponderance of evidence. It is much easier for thousands of angry engineers who know the code to produce such evidence than it is for lawyers who don't to manufacture it. Going by number of reams of paper alone, ther's no way SCO could win, if it came down to it. In summary, the legal case against any SCO claim against UCB or claim on BSD code is very, very strong. -- Terry From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:22:57 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 996D916A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:22:57 -0800 (PST) Received: from thuis.piwebs.com (217-19-20-186.dsl.cambrium.nl [217.19.20.186]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6372643FDD for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:22:52 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from avleeuwen@piwebs.com) Received: (qmail 69153 invoked by uid 85); 20 Nov 2003 17:23:10 -0000 Received: from avleeuwen@piwebs.com by thuis.piwebs.com by uid 82 with qmail-scanner-1.20rc1 (uvscan: v4.2.40/v4288. Clear:RC:1:. Processed in 1.162823 secs); 20 Nov 2003 17:23:10 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO 192.168.0.110) (192.168.0.110) by 0 with SMTP; 20 Nov 2003 17:23:08 -0000 From: Arjan van Leeuwen To: Terry Lambert , John Baldwin Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:22:46 +0100 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <3FBCB95B.44193DF2@mindspring.com> In-Reply-To: <3FBCB95B.44193DF2@mindspring.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1; boundary="Boundary-02=_ohPv/Z+BtArYnhx"; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:22:57 -0000 --Boundary-02=_ohPv/Z+BtArYnhx Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Description: signed data Content-Disposition: inline There's more information on this at Enterprise Linux: http://www.enterprise-linux-it.com/perl/story/22719.html Seems like we will have to wait until at least 2004 to hear what SCO has to= =20 say :). =2D-Start relevant quotes-- Second, SCO has said it will broaden its copyright protection efforts to=20 include "copyrighted code included in the 1994 settlement between Unix=20 Systems Laboratories and Berkeley Software Design (BSD)." SCO has said it=20 does not expect to file any BSD-related lawsuits until the first half of=20 2004. (...) BSD Gets Involved=20 Enlarging the scope of its legal battle to include BSD, SCO says it now is= =20 comparing code awarded in a 1994 settlement involving that company.=20 "As part of the settlement agreement that took place between BSD and AT&T=20 (NYSE: T) and Novell, there were certain files that had to have the=20 copyright attribution put back in," Stowell said.=20 "Copyright attribution has been stripped away from certain code, and we're= =20 seeing that same situation taking place with Linux with those same exact BS= D=20 files," he said. "Those files have gone back into Linux, and the copyright= =20 attribution has been stripped away." Those BSD files must have their=20 copyright attribution restored, Stowell said.=20 Additionally, "there were Unix System V files within BSD that were not=20 supposed to be there, and those files had to be removed from BSD," he said.= =20 "And we're claiming those files that were supposed to have been removed fro= m=20 BSD have made their way into Linux."=20 "Some of the BSD code likely made its way into Linux," said Aberdeen Group= =20 analyst Bill Claybrook, "and probably -- almost assuredly -- made its way=20 into [Unix] System V." However, he told NewsFactor, "You couldn't argue tha= t=20 just because [BSD] files went into System V, it was derived code." =2D-end quotes-- Arjan --Boundary-02=_ohPv/Z+BtArYnhx Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Description: signature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQA/vPho3Ym57eNCXiERAjPsAJ4msOTMOXD4iEwK3jPLVSjV5ZAFGACfQVvX ETIvLvHqkGLyENiHlr35MvI= =KLnZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Boundary-02=_ohPv/Z+BtArYnhx-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:25:41 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3CEF416A4DA; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:25:41 -0800 (PST) Received: from amsfep13-int.chello.nl (amsfep13-int.chello.nl [213.46.243.24]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 867C043FE9; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:25:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from dodell@sitetronics.com) Received: from sitetronics.com ([213.46.142.207]) by amsfep13-int.chello.nl ESMTP <20031120172537.KHZS12589.amsfep13-int.chello.nl@sitetronics.com>; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:25:37 +0100 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:24:57 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v552) To: Arjan van Leeuwen From: Devon H.O'Dell In-Reply-To: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Message-Id: <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.552) cc: Michal Pasternak cc: John Baldwin cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:25:41 -0000 Who cares? SCO is full of shit. What does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD? This list has been getting out of hand recently. Devon On Thursday, November 20, 2003, at 06:22 PM, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > There's more information on this at Enterprise Linux: > > http://www.enterprise-linux-it.com/perl/story/22719.html > > Seems like we will have to wait until at least 2004 to hear what SCO > has to > say :). > > --Start relevant quotes-- > Second, SCO has said it will broaden its copyright protection efforts > to > include "copyrighted code included in the 1994 settlement between Unix > Systems Laboratories and Berkeley Software Design (BSD)." SCO has said > it > does not expect to file any BSD-related lawsuits until the first half > of > 2004. > > (...) > > BSD Gets Involved > > Enlarging the scope of its legal battle to include BSD, SCO says it > now is > comparing code awarded in a 1994 settlement involving that company. > > "As part of the settlement agreement that took place between BSD and > AT&T > (NYSE: T) and Novell, there were certain files that had to have the > copyright attribution put back in," Stowell said. > > "Copyright attribution has been stripped away from certain code, and > we're > seeing that same situation taking place with Linux with those same > exact BSD > files," he said. "Those files have gone back into Linux, and the > copyright > attribution has been stripped away." Those BSD files must have their > copyright attribution restored, Stowell said. > > Additionally, "there were Unix System V files within BSD that were not > supposed to be there, and those files had to be removed from BSD," he > said. > "And we're claiming those files that were supposed to have been > removed from > BSD have made their way into Linux." > > "Some of the BSD code likely made its way into Linux," said Aberdeen > Group > analyst Bill Claybrook, "and probably -- almost assuredly -- made its > way > into [Unix] System V." However, he told NewsFactor, "You couldn't > argue that > just because [BSD] files went into System V, it was derived code." > --end quotes-- > > Arjan > From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:34:50 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 134EE16A4CF for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:34:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl (pr93.lublin.sdi.tpnet.pl [217.97.36.93]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 64EC543FF2 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:34:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from michal@pasternak.w.lub.pl) Received: (qmail 28737 invoked by uid 1000); 20 Nov 2003 17:35:15 -0000 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:35:15 +0100 From: Michal Pasternak To: "Devon H. O'Dell" Message-ID: <20031120173515.GB28666@pasternak.w.lub.pl> References: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org cc: Arjan van Leeuwen cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list Reply-To: Michal Pasternak List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:34:50 -0000 Devon H. O'Dell [Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:24:57PM +0100]: > What does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD? Well, we are unable now to advocate FreeBSD via saying: "SCO is after Linux, so please use BSD" ;) -- Michal Pasternak :: http://pasternak.w.lub.pl PS: and it would be really nice if you don't forget about cutting unneeded quotes, please. From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:37:49 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AC91C16A4CE; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:37:49 -0800 (PST) Received: from q.closedsrc.org (ip233.gte244.dsl-acs2.sea.iinet.com [209.20.244.233]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B0AF343FF9; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:37:48 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from question+advocacy@closedsrc.org) Received: by q.closedsrc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id 1209428495; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:37:15 -0800 (PST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:37:14 -0800 From: Linh Pham To: "Devon H.O'Dell" Message-ID: <20031120173714.GS30420@q.internal.closedsrc.org> References: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI" Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> Organization: closedsrc.org Mail-Copies-To: poster X-PGP-Key: http://closedsrc.org/~question/pubkey.asc User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.4i cc: Michal Pasternak cc: advocacy@freebsd.org cc: Arjan van Leeuwen cc: John Baldwin Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:37:49 -0000 --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2003-11-20 18:24 +0100, "Devon H.O'Dell" wrote: # Who cares? SCO is full of shit. #=20 # What does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD? This list has=20 # been getting out of hand recently. I agree that SCO is full of it and all of the talk about SCO and SCO's press releases and quotes are getting out of hand... but remember that a lot of BOFHs will hear that SCO may/will be going after BSD and will shun it even more like the have with Linux. Oh what do I know anyway... --=20 Linh Pham question+advocacy@closedsrc.org Webmaster and FreeBSD Geek http://closedsrc.org Apprentice Manager Editor and Writer http://www.daemonnews.org Courage: The things I do for love | And So Western Civilization Crumbles --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (FreeBSD) iD8DBQE/vPvKwhofDeWkDMIRAobdAJ9Dytn15Xc9m5NZc/0h2l3DLxEg5QCeLy4d yRHQUwH4ELBmRC67SdtFQgE= =n7BX -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --PmA2V3Z32TCmWXqI-- From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:47:26 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FC1116A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:47:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from newman.gte.com (newman.gte.com [132.197.8.26]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0908D43FDF for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:47:25 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ak03@gte.com) Received: from h132-197-179-27.gte.com (kanpc.gte.com [132.197.179.27]) by newman.gte.com (8.9.1/8.9.1) with ESMTP id MAA21063 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:47:24 -0500 (EST) Received: from kanpc.gte.com (localhost [IPv6:::1])hAKHlNrY077196 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:47:23 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from ak03@gte.com) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:47:23 -0500 From: Alexander Kabaev Message-Id: <20031120124723.062e4fb0.ak03@gte.com> In-Reply-To: <20031120173515.GB28666@pasternak.w.lub.pl> References: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> <20031120173515.GB28666@pasternak.w.lub.pl> Organization: Verizon Data Services X-Mailer: Sylpheed version 0.9.6claws71 (GTK+ 1.2.10; i386-portbld-freebsd5.1) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:47:26 -0000 On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:35:15 +0100 Michal Pasternak wrote: > Devon H. O'Dell [Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:24:57PM +0100]: > > What does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD? > > Well, we are unable now to advocate FreeBSD via saying: > "SCO is after Linux, so please use BSD" > ;) > Where on earth did you people find any proof to rumors of SCO going after _any_ of FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD projects? All there is in the news is claim that code removed from BSD's as a part of settlement did find their way back to Linux with copyright notices stripped. So, what does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD again? -- Alexander Kabaev From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 09:55:20 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2E6716A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:20 -0800 (PST) Received: from digiflux.org (43.Red-80-59-151.pooles.rima-tde.net [80.59.151.43]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 78E5143FA3 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 09:55:18 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from olivas@digiflux.org) Received: from [10.0.0.7] ([10.0.0.7]) by digiflux.org (8.12.9p2/8.12.9) with ESMTP id hAKHsJmF066895; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:54:19 +0100 (CET) (envelope-from olivas@digiflux.org) From: Stacy Olivas To: Alexander Kabaev In-Reply-To: <20031120124723.062e4fb0.ak03@gte.com> References: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> <7677F9D9-1B7E-11D8-856F-000502C708CB@sitetronics.com> <20031120173515.GB28666@pasternak.w.lub.pl> <20031120124723.062e4fb0.ak03@gte.com> Content-Type: text/plain Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Mailer: Ximian Evolution 1.0.8 (1.0.8-10) Date: 20 Nov 2003 18:46:46 +0100 Message-Id: <1069350406.11175.3.camel@echo> Mime-Version: 1.0 cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 17:55:20 -0000 On Thu, 2003-11-20 at 18:47, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > On Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:35:15 +0100 > Michal Pasternak wrote: > > > Devon H. O'Dell [Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:24:57PM +0100]: > > > What does this have to do with the advocacy of FreeBSD? > > I think the point here is that, since there is a hint that SCO may try to go after BSD, people who are promoting it's use are going to have to work a little but harder now. > > Well, we are unable now to advocate FreeBSD via saying: > > "SCO is after Linux, so please use BSD" > > ;) > > That is true. I'm sure someone has used that line to get people to use BSD. But, now people who buy the SCO FUD will be skeptical of BSD like they are of Linux. -Stacy From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 10:36:34 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 423EE16A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:36:34 -0800 (PST) Received: from zeus.acuson.com (ac17860.acuson.com [157.226.71.80]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 956CE43FF2 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:36:32 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from DavidJohnson@Siemens.com) Received: from mvaexch02 ([157.226.230.209]:1200 helo=mvaexch02.acuson.com) by zeus.acuson.com with esmtp (Exim 4.14) id 1AMtfE-0001Qa-3p; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:36:24 -0800 Received: by mvaexch02.acuson.com with Internet Mail Service (5.5.2657.72) id ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:31:38 -0800 Received: from dhcp-46-145.acuson.com ([157.226.46.145]) by mvaexch01.acuson.com with SMTP (Microsoft Exchange Internet Mail Service Version 5.5.2657.72) id VDNNF68V; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:30:43 -0800 From: Johnson David To: Linh Pham Organization: Siemens Medical Systems Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 10:34:35 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.5.4 References: <20031120173714.GS30420@q.internal.closedsrc.org> In-Reply-To: <20031120173714.GS30420@q.internal.closedsrc.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200311201034.35322.DavidJohnson@Siemens.com> X-Scanner: exiscan for exim4 (http://duncanthrax.net/exiscan/) *1AMtfE-0001Qa-3p*PNT4uSJAuOw* cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 18:36:34 -0000 On Thursday 20 November 2003 09:37 am, Linh Pham wrote: > I agree that SCO is full of it and all of the talk about SCO and > SCO's press releases and quotes are getting out of hand... but > remember that a lot of BOFHs will hear that SCO may/will be going > after BSD and will shun it even more like the have with Linux. Absolutely. The modern press is at fault, with their addiction to sound bites and easily-digestible news. Melodrama and amateur prognostication have replaced traditional reporting. Press releases from SCO are uncritically accepted, while in-depth analysis from the Unix community is ignored. Because of this, the general public believes SCO's story, like it or not. SCO's actions are FUD. And FUD can severly damage a community if accepted as truth by the general public. BSD will survive, of course, but I would prefer it to thrive as well. David From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 11:39:35 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C377B16A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:39:35 -0800 (PST) Received: from mail3.panix.com (mail3.panix.com [166.84.1.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E194A43F3F for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 11:39:34 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from ziggy@panix.com) Received: from panix2.panix.com (panix2.panix.com [166.84.1.2]) by mail3.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A5589A6ED6; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:39:31 -0500 (EST) Received: (from ziggy@localhost) by panix2.panix.com (8.11.6p2-a/8.8.8/PanixN1.1) id hAKJdVs22260; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:39:31 -0500 (EST) Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:39:31 -0500 From: Adam Turoff To: Arjan van Leeuwen Message-ID: <20031120193931.GA6136@panix.com> References: <3FBCB95B.44193DF2@mindspring.com> <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <200311201822.48804.avleeuwen@piwebs.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.1i cc: advocacy@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 19:39:35 -0000 On Thu, Nov 20, 2003 at 06:22:46PM +0100, Arjan van Leeuwen wrote: > Seems like we will have to wait until at least 2004 to hear what SCO has to > say :). Seems like we will have to wait until at least 2004 to hear SCO's next ploy to pump up its stock price and buttress its paper tigers. If there were an angle to go after PalmOS, they'd do that too. Their strategy is to go after Anyone but Microsoft and threaten lawsuits unless and until their claims are found to be baseless and without merit. They're just arbitraging the legal system. By the time the courts arrive at *ANY* conclusion, months will have passed where SCO is able to write licenses to companies trying to minimize their risk exposure. Z. From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 12:21:39 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF5516A4CE for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:21:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from pilchuck.reedmedia.net (pilchuck.reedmedia.net [209.166.74.74]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id D30DB43FB1 for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:21:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from reed@reedmedia.net) Received: from reed by pilchuck.reedmedia.net with local-esmtp (Exim 3.12 #1 (Debian)) id 1AMvIy-0005bA-00; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:21:32 -0800 Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 12:21:32 -0800 (PST) From: "Jeremy C. Reed" To: advocacy@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <20031120124723.062e4fb0.ak03@gte.com> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Subject: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 20:21:39 -0000 On Thu, 20 Nov 2003, Alexander Kabaev wrote: > Where on earth did you people find any proof to rumors of SCO going > after _any_ of FreeBSD, NetBSD and OpenBSD projects? http://www.windley.com/2003/11/18.html#a919 appears to be a notes from the Tuesday event, cdXpo keynote Webcast of Darl McBride. If I am reading it correctly, he answered these questions: - Do you have claims against BSD or BSD derivative works? - Will you do an analysis of BSD source tree and all derivative works? How much time will that take? It doesn't specifically mention any BSD projects by name. If I have time I will listen to that keynote and write an article for http://www.bsdnewsletter.com/ Jeremy C. Reed http://bsd.reedmedia.net/ From owner-freebsd-advocacy@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Nov 20 14:23:07 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C3A0416A4CF for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:23:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from vsmtp1.tin.it (vsmtp1.tin.it [212.216.176.221]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8D88543FEC for ; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 14:23:06 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from victorvittorivonwiktow@interfree.it) Received: from workstation (212.171.174.246) by vsmtp1.tin.it (7.0.019) id 3FB90156002187F4 for advocacy@freebsd.org; Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:23:05 +0100 Message-ID: <000c01c3afb4$de7b9140$f6aeabd4@workstation> From: ".VWV." To: References: <3FBCB95B.44193DF2@mindspring.com> Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 23:23:04 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1106 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1106 Subject: Re: Re: Re: SCO goes after BSD? X-BeenThere: freebsd-advocacy@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: FreeBSD Evangelism List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Nov 2003 22:23:07 -0000 It seems the following, is a very interesting report. Please, read carefully once more, then write your opinions. I have also read, the main target of the 'bastards' seems the Novell-SuSE at the moment, sure not FreeBSD. In any case, they'll look for a new target every day, until they will exist. Maybe it could be a foreseeing choice for the FreeBSD Foundation, to start a legal claim against SCO, if those people will threaten the Berkeley's rights. .VWV. Terry Lambert wrote: > A more likely target would be Cisco Systems or practically any > company using TCP/IP, given SCO's theory of what constitutes a > derivative work. > > For the most part, however, the 1994 settlement agreement is > unassailable from a lot of different perspectives: > > 1) It's a settlement agreement which both parties agreed > to be legally binding. An attempt to overturn it would > open them to a Contempt of Court charge, at a minimum. > > 2) USL was in violation of UCB Copyright on many printed > materials; reopening this would make SCO subject to > the counterclaim of copyright infringement. If they > lost, they would b liable for collecting every scrap of > paper on which the material or derivative works have > been printed. How many Ultrix manuals did DEC print? > > 3) Much of the code in SVR4.x was imported from the Net/2 > sources out of Berkeley. Almost all of the ntworking. > They will have a hard time proving provenance of their > code. > > 4) Part of the counterclaim's cause of action was Copyright > and license violation by USL, by virtue of removal of the > Copyright and license statements in the header files. > > 5) Much of the code that makes up the SVR4 networking code > was developed under contract to DARPA. Despite the recent > slapping of a GPL on things developed with public funds, > things developed with public funds are technically requied > to be in the public domain (i.e. slapping a license on top > of it before releasing it is not allowed). > > 6) One of the contributing factors to the settlement was the > judge effectively telling USL "I think you have a very > weak case, and will probably rule against you". > > 7) SCO is an assign of the rights in the UNIX source code, and > those rights were specifically limited by the settlement > agreement. SCO is therefore a priori bound by that agreement. > > 8) USL's primary legal theory at the time was "trade secret > disclosure"; however, trade secret law states that no matter > how a secret is disclosed, once it is disclosed, it is no > longer a secret. This is generally useful in this case, > since SCO can only go after the disclosing party for damages, > and can not limit further propagation of the trade secret as > if it were still secret (this is what they attempted to do); > one of the judge's arguments was that they were attempting > to obtain the moral quivalent of patent protection without > disclosure, and that this attempt was unconstituional. > > 9) The FreeBSD and NetBSD projects, at least, have auditable > records of every line of code added since the 4.4 BSD-Lite > code was imported into the tree. For them to come after > FreeBSD, as an example, they would need to overturn the > settlement agrement, refile and win the case against UCB, > and then prove that their trade secrets are still secret > after having been published for over a decade and a half. > > 10) The UCB license was the old Western Electric license, which > did not have a non-disclosure clause in its original form; > hence the Lyon's book. > > 11) When UNIX was invented and first published, USL was a part > of AT&T, and AT&T was specifically enjoined from making a > profit of any kind off of software -- including a paper > profit in the form of the accumulation of intellectual > property -- as a result of the 1956 consent decree, under > which they were legally acknowledged to be a monopoloy, and > thereafter had to operate as a regulated monopoly. It's > not clear that their sale of USL would permit USL to later > claim intellectual property from conversion of illegally > accumulated assets. > > 12) If SCO's theory of derivation is correct, then SVR4 is a > derivative work of BSD UNIX and publically funded work. > > During the original case, a number of well known people offered to > testify a witnesses on behalf of UCB; among these were Dennis Ritchie > and Ken Thompson, as well as other prominent computer scientists with > an involvement in UNIX since its inception. > > Another interesting thing that happened was that MIT offered to fund > the defense, and offered their patent portfolio as ammunition (I > still get annoyed at UCB turning down this offer). > > FWIW, I'm personally willing to testify as an expert witness as a > former Novell/USG employee (Novell/USG was the UNIX Systems Group > that was formed after the Novell acquisition of USL). I personally > camped out in Mike DeFazio's (then Novell VP over Novell/USG, and > the man who eventally dropped the lawsuit) office with a number of > other Novell/USG employees to get 386BSD, FreeBSD, and NetBSD the > same deal that USL was giving BSDI. Originally they sent a cease > and desist order to everyone they could find, Jordan included, and > there was no grace period for continuing to ship code (like BSDI > was being allowed) until the 4.4-Lite code was made available. I'm > pretty sure Jim Freeman and others would be similarly inclined. > > Finally, remember that civil cases are won or lost on the basis of > a preponderance of evidence. It is much easier for thousands of > angry engineers who know the code to produce such evidence than it > is for lawyers who don't to manufacture it. Going by number of > reams of paper alone, ther's no way SCO could win, if it came down > to it. > > In summary, the legal case against any SCO claim against UCB or > claim on BSD code is very, very strong. > > -- Terry