Posted on 08/09/2005 8:32:02 PM PDT by N3WBI3
Here are excerpts from the Deposition of SCO employee Erik W. Hughes [PDF]. It's a large PDF, so be patient. Our thanks to Frank Sorenson for picking up this deposition and scanning it for us.
Hold on to your hats. He confirms that the Linux Kernel Personality did indeed include Linux kernel code, and as a result, both UnixWare 7.1.2 and 7.1.3 included Linux kernel code until May of 2003.
While Hughes testifies that in addition to the obvious candidates (Caldera's Linux distributions), two releases of UnixWare included the Linux kernel in some way, as part of the LKP -- and of course, such inclusion would have to be under the GPL -- yet the question that is left unanswered, tantalizingly, by the deposition is this: in what way was the Linux kernel "included" in LKP? Did the UnixWare kernel somehow make use of the Linux kernel binary? If so, how -- and would the use be intimate enough to have created a "work based on the program" as the GPL puts it? If not, how was the kernel "included"? Was kernel source code reused in the UnixWare kernel, as one anonymous source claimed to eWeek's Peter Galli long ago? We don't have totally firm answers to these questions from this deposition alone, but IBM probably does, and we're definitely getting warmer. And more and more, it looks like SCO's goose is cooked.
No wonder SCO is now talking about trying to survive as a tech company even if they lose the litigation. It also is now apparent why SCO tried to say the GPL is unconstitutional, void, voidable, etc., anything to try to make it not be binding on them. Please don't anyone ever again tell me that we don't need the GPL. Look at the role this champion license has played in SCO v. the World.
You will also enjoy the questions and answers about Linux being available long after SCO said they had stopped distributing. You probably won't enjoy hearing SCO employees calling geeks "longhaired smellies."
Thanks for admitting it's not completely "free", since there is some sort of a catch you are attempting to hook SCO on for using it. Other users who develop their own code to be along with it should obviously beware, else they face the wrath of those who claim they want software to be free, but really just want it for their own.
Free is what you make of it.
Is it free enough to use to run your business... absolutely! Glad we agree!
Not free according to CDW...not even cheap.
http://www.cdw.com/shop/search/results.aspx?key=enterprise+linux&filteredsortorder=PRICEDESC&platform=all
Not bad for a 100 user site license...
Care to guess how much a 100 user site license for Windows Server 2003 is?
Hint: It's more.
Hallmark of lunix proponents: when proven wrong, bash Microsoft.
Really? I thought we were just comparing prices... I didn't bash anyone. And, quite clever calling it "lunix". I guess I should call it "micro$oft" in return or something.
Disclosure: I develop software for both Windows and Unix. Calling me a "lunix" proponent is... the last resort of someone who has nothing else to say I guess.
Price: Free
Now, you were saying something about it not being free?
Hallmark of Microsofties: when confronted by the facts, lie.
GE hasn't had anything to say for a long time. Yet he keeps posting.
SCO was completely free to use it *under the terms of the license the copyright holder put it under*. This would include publishing the source of the GPL code they put into their release. But thank you for admitting you dont care if SCO violates a software developers copyright..
since there is some sort of a catch you are attempting to hook SCO on for using it.
Yea its called US law, glad to see you got the memo, thanks for trying to keep up. there is more evidence on this forum of sco violating the IP of others than IBM yet you continue to ignore this... do you care sco is violating us copyright law
http://fedore.redhat.com
hows this?
that fedora.redhat.com
When I find that I must use a free RedHat derivative, I use CentOS.
Actually, Fedora isn't that bad. It's just that it's primarily and experimental distro. There's a place for that, of course, but on my lab boxes, not on my production systems.
Currently I use Debian on my desktop machines, though I'm keeping an eye on Kubuntu.
Let's make sure that this is completely clear for everyone reading.
SCO seems to have used parts of the Linux kernel in it's closed source product. This is a violation of the GPL.
The GPL says that it's perfectly ok to download a GPL'd product and use parts of it in your product, provided that your product is then placed under the GPL. SCO didn't place their product under the GPL so they are in violation of same.
Now, I know that some people around here will want to claim that the GPL is invalid. Wrong, but okay, let's play that game.
If the GPL isn't valid, then what SCO did was a violation of good-old, everyday, copyright. That is, they took some one else's IP and used it in their own product without permission.
Note also that this is exactly what they claimed that the Linux developers did to them.
Now, to date, there is no evidence that there is any SCO product in the Linux kernel. There is even an internal SCO report of an audit performed by SCO that found no SCO code in the Linux kernel.
So it seems that SCO is guilty of what they claim to have been victims of.
I'm starting to wonder if the SCO suits are simply a case of "the best defense is a good offense," namely, rather than be caught out as theives they decided to call the victims theives and thus muddy the waters until such time as all of the officers of the company could sell their stock and then quietly fold up the company.
I love fedora though I usuually stay 1 core release behind. CENTOS is niec enough but for some reason it seems to be more of a pig then RHEL..
Actually you can use parts without gpling the closed source parts. SCO did not have to release its kernel under gpl just the librarioes it used to interface with the Linux kernel code..
Eh I have auditors and PHB's to make happy so I just go ahead and drop the money for RHEL (full out for production) and developer entitlements to dev-test (at 300$ for 5 RHEL subscriptions you cant go wrong for dev/test)..
Either way, SCO used code they had no right to use.
As usual, you're the liar, even though you accuse me of it. OpenSuse isn't the same as Suse Pro, minus support, despite your bogus claim to the contrary.
http://www.webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20050810NovellOpensUpSUSE.html
"The company will still deliver a shrinkwrapped version of the OS for retail sale. Those prepackaged distributions will contain the OS and extras like additional software, documentation, and installation support."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.