- Legacy - lists.gtalug.org

SCO has valid case
by kmastin-PzQIwG9Jn9VAFePFGvp55w＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

> I was at SCO Forum this week and viewed some of the disputed code and > SCO's explanations both without and with NDA. They have a valid case. .. so you are stating that the court has accepted their prima facie case? (A valid case is not necessarily a winning one, only one that should be heard. Until a court of valid jurisdiction rules otherwise, SCO's case does appear to be valid insofar as valid means that it should be heard.) Winning it is a completely different matter... > Linux kernel 2.4 to 2.6 contains AIX code which allows scalability > beyond that which would have been available in a "regular development > timeframe". Anyone interested in a copy of the non-nda PPT let me know > and I'll email you a copy. I've tried several postings to the list > server but it does'nt seem to be working. This is a great ploy on SCO's behalf, trying the case in the court of public opinion with a jury that is uninstructed on interpreting the applied laws by a judge from a qualified bench. One of the tenets of law is the "Appearance of Justice"... not that justice can be proven to be done, but that it appears to have been done. Every case has at least one loser. That said, the impact of the case so far is that it is bringing a whole bunch of previously unframed questions about the opensource model that haven't really been addressed by opensource advocacy hype. How strong is the GPL and just how flexible is the code? SCO still has their work cut out for them to get anywhere noteworthy within the legal system with this case. Filing a case <> winning a case. IMHO this case in more noteworthy in how it will set precedence in law about the interpretation and application of the copyright legislation to the specific points of the case rather than the outcome, and how the application of the final judgement will affect future code revisions. I suspect that the basis of the core kernel code is strong enough to survive an unfavorable ruling. The question in my mind is, is the opensource community strong enough to survive the courtcase, winning or losing notwithstanding? -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

ss.org email trouble
by robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Peter L. Peres wrote: > It turns out that the mail problem is not at ss.org afaik but one hop > before it, at a place called nte.com Hi Peter. I'm seeing something very different to you. > Therefore point your mta transport map to ss.org directly [206.108.5.1] > and your mail will arrive. I just did this with full logging and it works > fine. For me at least it'll just go straight to 206.108.5.1 (in a messaging sense, not a packet sense of course): zen:~$ host -t mx ss.org ss.org MX 1 lethe.ss.org zen:~$ host lethe.ss.org lethe.ss.org A 206.108.5.1 > mail.ets.com is some sort of mx or hop on the way to ss.org from ??? I > keep getting reminders that it still tries to send my mail, with ss.org > timing out every time on the transfer. Both mail.ets.com & mail.nte.com do not resolve for me: zen:~$ host mail.ets.com mail.ets.com does not exist, try again zen:~$ host mail.nte.com mail.nte.com does not exist, try again The domains do exist which is not surprising given the are both 3 letters :) Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, zzbrock at uqconnect.net Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

A Canadian Response to SCO
by robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Max Blanco wrote: > Can I read somewhere about how this issue affects the little guy? > I have a 1995 distro of redhat. Does this affect me? > What about if I have a 2.2 kernel built in 2000? Ok, I'm not a lawyer but I do have some idea about how the legal system works. Right now SCO is telling Linux users to get a licencing fee. Right now you are under no legal obligation to do this. SCO have made a number of claims, none of which have been substantiated in court. If any of these claims are ever substantiated in court (something many of us feel is unlikely) then you may need to take notice. Until then SCOs claims are nothing but words. > If I read this right, as long as you stick to 2.4 kernel code, who cares? SCO are going after 2.4. > Can you delete the offending 27 lines of code from the kernel and still > make it crash proof and kickass...? The lines mentioned in the the recent SCO seminars for their resellers have been shown to be absolutely positively available under the BSD licence. This means the code is freely redistributable. The BSD licence is far freer than the GPL. It took the OpenSource community about 5 hours to determine the code SCO put up on the slides at the seminars was available under the BSD licence. The fact that the SCO lawyers apparently couldn't figure out the code in question was available under the BSD licence does not bode well for their abilities in my eyes, unless of course it was the intention of the lawyers and those preparing the seminars to deliberately mislead those present in the audience. So SCO are still yet to provide any proof of their position, despite their claims that they have now done so. Rob -- Robert Brockway B.Sc. email: robert-5LEc/6Zm6xCUd8a0hrldnti2O/JbrIOy at public.gmane.org, zzbrock at uqconnect.net Linux counter project ID #16440 (http://counter.li.org) "The earth is but one country and mankind its citizens" -Baha'u'llah -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Rick Tomaschuk wrote: > peanuts compared to the long term value it offered. What on earth is > wrong with a free market? Our whole economy is based on a free market. This is not about free market, this is about some firm or other dragging down the good name of Linux and attacking the GPL in a FUD war that precedes a multi-billion multi-year lawsuit in a country other than the one where you (I understand) and I (certainly) live, for months on end (**), where such things are a national passtime apparently. The FIRST thing that should worry a Linux user/developer is whether the GPL was violated by someone. Not by whom. Then the second worry would be to undo the damage asap, first by applying the GPL provisions for violations of the GPL license, since THIS is the license that was violated, not some IP ownership or other, about which as a Linux user/developer you should care only as a second thought. That means immediate summons from the GPL and FSF (as appropriate) copyright and license rights owners (such as Linus Torvalds, who owns the copyright on the majority of the kernel code) to the involved or suspected parties to cease distribution and use of Linux and of the name Linux (Linux is also a trademark of Linux Torvalds) until the matter is cleared, and in parallel an effort to find and remove the code that OFFENDS THE GPL (I do NOT care who else it offends !) from the Linux codebase, and replace it as necessary. THIS is what Linux users and developers need. THEN, when on the side, we can talk about whose made a mistake and who went along with it, and have all the fud you want, about those firms who are involved in this. *NOT* about GPL and Linux, which is a *victim* of misuse by someone of someone else's IP, and not *guilty* of it. Come to think of it, the GPL copyright holders could sue both big firms for license violation and slander. > The world is moving toward globalization. The GPL is a welcome > addition to our world but we still need to maintain other options. IMHO The GPL is a welcome addition to what exactly ? It has been here for nearly 10 years I think. Other options ? As many as you want. But without the Linux codebase and the GPL, thank you, we will not have them mixed into the continuous-lawsuit-thing that takes part in a certain country. {\footnote (**) New Linux versions come out about every 6 months. If the lawsuit will work as such lawsuits worked until now, it could bog down Linux development for 6 versions, easily. I do *NOT* want that, badly enough, to start contributing to a new codebase derived from 2.2, and thus unaffected by the lawsuit, starting tomorrow. And I know I am not alone on this. Know thy history, at least so you can avoid past mistakes. 'Waiting it out' is not a good idea in this case. And I don't care if I have to call it 'Notlin' or something like that. } Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

ss.org email trouble
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

It turns out that the mail problem is not at ss.org afaik but one hop before it, at a place called nte.com Therefore point your mta transport map to ss.org directly [206.108.5.1] and your mail will arrive. I just did this with full logging and it works fine. mail.ets.com is some sort of mx or hop on the way to ss.org from ??? I keep getting reminders that it still tries to send my mail, with ss.org timing out every time on the transfer. hope this helps, Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by rickl-ZACYGPecefkNbK0NzMECUg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

At the briefing SCO claimed copyright and trademark ownership of the UNIX name. As for ties to Microsoft going back many years SCO referred to these claims as laughable and I would be skeptical of SCO's involvement and any sort of stock sell off given the fallout from Enron, Tyco, Martha etc. Unix coming from mixed origins (Berkeley)is based on confidential agreements and otherwise with AT&T to rewrite code. While I may not be 100% right on with every tiny tid-bit since I have better things to do than filter through every line of every article ever written on the subject I'm confident in the accuracy of the bulk of what I'm saying since I've had the opportunity to get answers directly from SCO's CEO and other CEO's and officers who seem to know what they are talking about. I'm just a low level partner like many others I've met at TLUG meetings. If you are as informed as you think you are we could have used you in Las Vegas this week. Why were'nt you there? The trip cost peanuts compared to the long term value it offered. What on earth is wrong with a free market? Our whole economy is based on a free market. The world is moving toward globalization. The GPL is a welcome addition to our world but we still need to maintain other options. IMHO On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:49:51 -0400, Lloyd D Budd <lloyd-fEEwcc3XMu8jODpR/OX0VQ at public.gmane.org> wrote : > On Fri, 2003-08-22 at 17:59, Rick Tomaschuk may have wrote: > > > > My understanding is that SCO owns copyrights and trademarks for > > UNIX SYSTEM V. > Err...but it is debatable whether they own the trademark to UNIX. IBM > had a special contractually arrangement with AT&T. The other UNIX(s) > that IBM bought have not had their agreements released. > > > Most other (nearly all) UNIXes are > > based upon licences from SYSTEM V (AT&T) so SCO is at the root of the > > UNIX tree. > Most? Many UNIX seem to be from mixed origin. > > It is not clear to me how relevant other item is, but there is a *huge* > amount of interesting information on the net related to this. > > > > As for reporters and their articles I've read and will continue to read all I > > can find. > Rick, prior to the briefing where you well versed on the information > available? > > I find it difficult to believe that you have read everything that you > can find. Otherwise, I do not know how you could suggest: > > MY UNDERSTANDING is that it is not SCO's intention to undermine the > > Linux effort but rather to survive as a "for profit" company in a free > > market. > > profit> some have suggested that there has been stock sell off of > interesting quantity > > free market> cringe > > > If you are genuinely interested, it appears there is a lot of material > available that you might not have read thoroughly. slashdot is a good > place to start as they provide links to pretty much all of the articles > I was aware of before I got bored of the topic after many, many articles > over many, many days, > Lloyd > > > P.S. This is unlikely be resolved any year soon. > > -- > The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org > TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns > How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml > > > -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

A Canadian Response to SCO
by rickl-ZACYGPecefkNbK0NzMECUg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

The response I received at the briefing to that question was that only kernels 2.4-2.6 were affected. Prior versions were not under dispute. RickT On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 07:52:19 -0400 (EDT), Max Blanco <blanco-S8qYAnHmZTt34ZA5RureAJ4VBq8PJc8F at public.gmane.org> wrote : > On 22 Aug 2003, Matthew Rice wrote: > > > Hi everyone, > > > > This has been forwarded from the NewTLUG mailing list. Bill Traynor [the > > original poster] hasn't been able to send this to TLUG. Well, at least he > > and I haven't seen it show up on the list. > > > > So I'm trying. > > > > Can I read somewhere about how this issue affects the little guy? > I have a 1995 distro of redhat. Does this affect me? > What about if I have a 2.2 kernel built in 2000? > > CLIC has been up in arms over the courtroom theatrics, but how about > the substance? It hasn't been clear to me why I should care. > (Sorry if that's a little blunt.) > > If I read this right, as long as you stick to 2.4 kernel code, who cares? > > Can you delete the offending 27 lines of code from the kernel and still > make it crash proof and kickass...? > > > -- > The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org > TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns > How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml > > > -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

chat
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

chat talk to its stdin and stdout but it will not work stand-alone, as in: chat "" ATZ OK </dev/modem >/dev/modem because the line disipline and buffering need to be set. pppd does this before calling chat. calling chat as above will fail on any machine, in despite of working modem etc. The call will hang (can be interrupted with ^C). bye, Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

SCO has valid case
by plp-ysDPMY98cNQDDBjDh4tngg＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003, Lloyd D Budd wrote: > P.S. This is unlikely be resolved any year soon. Well one thing is resolved: anyone running kernels prior to 2.4 is unaffected. Peter -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0

City of Toronto using Linux (on the desktop, yet!)
by blanco-S8qYAnHmZTt34ZA5RureAJ4VBq8PJc8F＠public.gmane.org 23 Aug '03

23 Aug '03

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003, Phillip Mills wrote: > ===== If it hurts, don't do it. ===== > > Each time I read an article about another worm or virus attacking > computer systems (Blaster Worm hampering power repair, Aug. 20; Viruses > eat away at firms' productivity, Aug. 21), I am dismayed that the > authors portray the affected organizations as victims. Damage from > malicious computer code is not at all like the result of some > mysterious, chaotic force of nature; it is the predictable outcome of a > business decision. > The very design of some Microsoft products, emphasizing convenience > over security, invites and enables attacks of technological vandalism. > Since at least the Melissa virus (1999) and the Code Red worm (2001), > we've known that exposing Microsoft mail and server software to the > Internet increases the risk of damage and downtime compared to all the > safer -- and often cheaper -- alternatives. It's the business > equivalent of smoking cigarettes in a public place: it can kill you > while it harms and annoys those around you. > For companies to put themselves at unnecessary risk is a waste of > their resources. For government organizations to do so is an abuse of > the public trust. > > ===== "It's the equivalent of smoking cigarettes in a place of business: this boorish behaviour can kill you while it harms and annoys your co-workers." Do you think the community of TLUG would consider sending this letter to the Globe and Mail, signed onto it as individuals: "Phillip Mills and 100 other members of Toronto Linux Users Group" ??? I'd add my voice if someone can cobble the requisite technology together... (does this listserv get read on Saturday? If Monday ed is not practical, Wed ed would be.) We should be able to do this with a minimum number of a dozen signatories, IMHO. -- The Toronto Linux Users Group. Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml

1 0