From grog@lemis.com Mon Mar 10 01:21:47 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 11:51:47 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
Message-ID: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
I'm sure I'm not the only person who sees SCO's recent legal
activities with dismay. For those of you still looking for facts,
take a look at the links off http://www.sco.com/scosource/, and
particularly the complaint at
http://www.sco.com/scosource/complaint3.06.03.html. There are a
number of things there which concern me, but particularly:
85. For example, Linux is currently capable of coordinating the
simultaneous performance of 4 computer processors. UNIX, on
the other hand, commonly links 16 processors and can
successfully link up to 32 processors for simultaneous
operation. This difference in memory management performance
is very significant to enterprise customers who need extremely
high computing capabilities for complex tasks. The ability to
accomplish this task successfully has taken AT&T, Novell and
SCO at least 20 years, with access to expensive equipment for
design and testing, well-trained UNIX engineers and a wealth
of experience in UNIX methods and concepts.
Apart from the fact that I can't see any factual evidence that System
V as licensed from SCO or its predecessors had any competitive SMP
scalability, the "20 years" concerns me. That could go back to the
days of the Seventh Edition.
Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
their web site.
Comments?
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From michael_davidson@pacbell.net Mon Mar 10 03:13:01 2003
From: michael_davidson@pacbell.net (Michael Davidson)
Date: Sun, 9 Mar 2003 19:13:01 -0800
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
----- Original Message -----
From: Greg 'groggy' Lehey <grog@lemis.com>
To: UNIX Heritage Society <tuhs@tuhs.org>
Sent: Sunday, March 09, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
>
> Which brings me to the real point: a little over a year ago, we
> received a message from Dion Johnson releasing Ancient UNIX under a
> BSD licence. For those of you who have misplaced it, I'm attaching it
> again. While none of us doubt that it is genuine, SCO has no record
> of it on their web site, nor (as far as I know) do any of us have this
> in signed form. In view of SCO's aggression, I think we should
> contact them and ask them to at least put the statement somewhere on
> their web site.
>
While I can't comment on the current legal issues, I was involved
in the decision to release the "Ancient UNIX" source code under a
BSD style license and I am not aware of anything having changed
in that area.
I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current
position on "Ancient UNIX" - I expect that this will take a few
days but I should have an answer by the end of the week.
Michael Davidson
From jss@subatomix.com Mon Mar 10 20:21:00 2003
From: jss@subatomix.com (Jeffrey Sharp)
Date: Mon, 10 Mar 2003 14:21:00 -0600
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
Message-ID: <671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
> I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current position
> on "Ancient UNIX"
But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
TINLA.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
From peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au Mon Mar 10 21:15:18 2003
From: peter.jeremy@alcatel.com.au (Peter Jeremy)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 08:15:18 +1100
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
<671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
Message-ID: <20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp <jss@subatomix.com> wrote:
>On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
>> I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current position
>> on "Ancient UNIX"
>
>But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
>simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
>they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
>current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
>TINLA.
AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
have the authority to make the claims therein.
What would you do if SCO's lawyers came knocking on your door and
demanded you cease distributing ancient UNIX or derived products?
Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
more money than you can.
The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code
to a BSD license.
IANAL, TINLA etc.
Peter
From grog@lemis.com Mon Mar 10 23:45:48 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:15:48 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
<671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
<20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
Message-ID: <20030310234548.GO94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 8:15:18 +1100, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2003-Mar-10 14:21:00 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
>> On Sunday, March 9, 2003, Michael Davidson wrote:
>>> I will, however, ask for an "official" statement of SCO's current position
>>> on "Ancient UNIX"
>>
>> But once they've released it under a BSD-style license, it is released. They
>> simply can't unrelease it. They don't have to continue distributing it, but
>> they can't stop me from doing what the license explicitly allows. So their
>> current position WRT ancient UNIX may not mave much legal weight. IANAL,
>> TINLA.
>
> AFAIK, the only evidence we have that it is released under a BSD-style
> license is an e-mail allegedly from an authorised person within SCO.
> Warren has not been able to find an equivalent statement on their
> website. I suspect Warren is concerned that they could claim it was
> never released - ie the e-mail is a faked/forged or the sender didn't
> have the authority to make the claims therein.
I think you mean me, not Warren. Warren hasn't said anything yet.
My concern is not whether it's genuine--I'm convinced it is. My
concern is more whether SCO's apparently bone-headed lawyers will
believe it's genuine.
> What would you do if SCO's lawyers came knocking on your door and
> demanded you cease distributing ancient UNIX or derived products?
Yes, this is the point.
> Whilst you could probably prove the authenticity of the e-mail, this
> would cost real money - and SCO probably can afford to spend a lot
> more money than you can.
It's not clear how much money SCO has.
> The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
> presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code
> to a BSD license.
I am very sure that IBM has not put any UNIX code into Linux. For one
thing, it's not their style, and in fact they keep the AIX and Linux
people very separate. Last year I wrote a clone of AIX's JFS file
system on Linux for IBM. This is the old JFS, not the JFS they
released under GPL. I was not allowed to see the AIX source code, for
exactly the reasons of the complaint. The only information I had were
the header files they distribute with the development system.
The AIX code wouldn't have helped, anyway. Linux is not UNIX, as
anybody who's done kernel programming in both knows. I had thought
that this childish superstition about the holiness of source code
would have been stamped out at the end of the last UNIX wars.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Tue Mar 11 01:51:28 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 11:51:28 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <000001c2e76b$9a93f560$e3c8580c@who5>
References: <20030311002203.GS90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
<000001c2e76b$9a93f560$e3c8580c@who5>
Message-ID: <20030311015128.GA95821@minnie.tuhs.org>
I've just read through the TUHS mail: SCO vs. IBM.
I think we're missing the point a bit. The Caldera license places the
UNIX research editions 1 to 7, and 32V, under a BSD-style license.
Later systems such as System III and System V are not covered.
Although the Caldera license helps protect the newer BSDs from license
infringement, SCO/Caldera can still sue anybody if they believe that
their IP from System III/System V and on has been violated.
IBM has a source license to System V and has contributed to Linux.
I think that this is the approach that SCO/Caldera are taking in the
lawsuit.
The BSDs are more immune here, unless BSDI or Apple also have a System V
source license. [ Er, um, given the existence of Apples A/UX, they probably
do. Ah, I should have kept my mouth shut :-) ]
So: I don't think the BSDs or the Unix Archive are under any immediate
threat. I agree with whoever that suggested that SCO/Caldera are doing
this as a means of raising revenue.
Just my $0.02 here.
Warren
From grog@lemis.com Tue Mar 11 01:59:39 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 12:29:39 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <20030311015128.GA95821@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <20030311002203.GS90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
<000001c2e76b$9a93f560$e3c8580c@who5>
<20030311015128.GA95821@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030311015939.GN45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 11:51:28 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> I've just read through the TUHS mail: SCO vs. IBM.
>
> I think we're missing the point a bit. The Caldera license places
> the UNIX research editions 1 to 7, and 32V, under a BSD-style
> license. Later systems such as System III and System V are not
> covered.
Yes, maybe you're missing the point. My concern was that the Caldera
license has never been signed, and that they don't have anything about
it on their web site.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Tue Mar 11 03:51:04 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 13:51:04 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <20030311015939.GN45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <20030311002203.GS90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
<000001c2e76b$9a93f560$e3c8580c@who5>
<20030311015128.GA95821@minnie.tuhs.org>
<20030311015939.GN45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030311035104.GA97079@minnie.tuhs.org>
On Tue, Mar 11, 2003 at 12:29:39PM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > I think we're missing the point a bit.
>
> Yes, maybe you're missing the point. My concern was that the Caldera
> license has never been signed, and that they don't have anything about
> it on their web site.
> Greg
Yes, that's true. I hadn't missed it, but I hadn't started to worry
about it yet. Wait till Uncle Caldera gives me a phone call .....
Warren
From jss@subatomix.com Wed Mar 12 04:46:04 2003
From: jss@subatomix.com (Jeffrey Sharp)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:46:04 -0600
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
<671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
<20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
Message-ID: <1099333580.20030311224604@subatomix.com>
On Monday, March 10, 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
> The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
> presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code to a
> BSD license.
Does the suit involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on concepts,
then any sufficiently similar implementation might infringe upon the patent,
no matter how untainted its code is. This case has the potential to go
horribly, horribly awry if a stupid judge sits on the bench.
--
Jeffrey Sharp
From grog@lemis.com Wed Mar 12 05:03:12 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 15:33:12 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <1099333580.20030311224604@subatomix.com>
References: <20030310012147.GB94647@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<002501c2e6b2$f8b6ec60$ed8ca140@ca.caldera.com>
<671020867.20030310142100@subatomix.com>
<20030310211518.GL90290@gsmx07.alcatel.com.au>
<1099333580.20030311224604@subatomix.com>
Message-ID: <20030312050312.GU78280@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 22:46:04 -0600, Jeffrey Sharp wrote:
> On Monday, March 10, 2003, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>> The date of the e-mail may also be a crucial issue - since IBM would
>> presumably have the right to use the code after SCO changed the code to a
>> BSD license.
>
> Does the suit involve code xor concepts? If the patents are on concepts,
> then any sufficiently similar implementation might infringe upon the patent,
> no matter how untainted its code is. This case has the potential to go
> horribly, horribly awry if a stupid judge sits on the bench.
I this subthread is off the mark. I'm personally convinced that IBM
never used any licensed UNIX technology in Linux.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com Tue Mar 11 05:25:40 2003
From: dmr@plan9.bell-labs.com (Dennis Ritchie)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 00:25:40 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
Message-ID: <3394dec0a229ed7a184b5282445bb41e@plan9.bell-labs.com>
A working link to the ancient-Unix license exists at
http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html
This is a saved link; I didn't investigate how
to find it currently from a Caldera or SCO site.
In case anyone is interested, I retrieved
some fraction of the court papers from
the early 90s USL suit against BSDI and UCB.
The case seems in some ways similar to this
one. They are at
http://cm.bell-labs.com/cm/cs/who/dmr/bsdi/bsdisuit.html
In this one, USL pulled back after an injunction
was denied. By the time the 1993 ruling was issued,
USL was being taken over by Novell.
Dennis
From grog@lemis.com Tue Mar 11 06:01:43 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 16:31:43 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO sues IBM?
In-Reply-To: <3394dec0a229ed7a184b5282445bb41e@plan9.bell-labs.com>
References: <3394dec0a229ed7a184b5282445bb41e@plan9.bell-labs.com>
Message-ID: <20030311060143.GQ45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 0:25:40 -0500, Dennis Ritchie wrote:
> A working link to the ancient-Unix license exists at
>
> http://shop.caldera.com/caldera/ancient.html
>
> This is a saved link; I didn't investigate how
> to find it currently from a Caldera or SCO site.
This is the prior license. It contains wording like:
2.1 (a) CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. 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. CALDERA INTERNATIONAL, INC. claims no ownership
interest in any portion of such a modification or DERIVED
BINARY PRODUCT that is not part of a SOURCE CODE PRODUCT.
That's not the BSD-like license under which they re-released the code
last year.
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From arnold@skeeve.com Tue Mar 11 08:43:20 2003
From: arnold@skeeve.com (Aharon Robbins)
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 10:43:20 +0200
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
Message-ID: <200303110843.h2B8hKtx002312@localhost.localdomain>
Can someone clarify for me how Caldera fits in the picture? I thought
SCO sold Unix to Caldera? It was Caldera that did the BSD-ing of ancient
Unix.
FWIW I too paid $100 for an ancient Unix license, and I've got the System III
stuff that licensees had access to.
Thanks,
Arnold
From grog@lemis.com Tue Mar 11 22:45:00 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:15:00 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <200303110843.h2B8hKtx002312@localhost.localdomain>
References: <200303110843.h2B8hKtx002312@localhost.localdomain>
Message-ID: <20030311224500.GV45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Tuesday, 11 March 2003 at 10:43:20 +0200, Aharon Robbins wrote:
> Can someone clarify for me how Caldera fits in the picture? I thought
> SCO sold Unix to Caldera? It was Caldera that did the BSD-ing of ancient
> Unix.
Caldera changed its name (back) to SCO about last August. It's the
same company. Take a look at http://www.caldera.com.
> FWIW I too paid $100 for an ancient Unix license, and I've got the
> System III stuff that licensees had access to.
Hmmm. That's a point. Does the Ancient UNIX license cover more than
last year's release?
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Tue Mar 11 23:27:13 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:27:13 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <20030311224500.GV45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
References: <200303110843.h2B8hKtx002312@localhost.localdomain>
<20030311224500.GV45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
Message-ID: <20030311232713.GA7295@minnie.tuhs.org>
On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:15:00AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
> > FWIW I too paid $100 for an ancient Unix license, and I've got the
> > System III stuff that licensees had access to.
>
> Hmmm. That's a point. Does the Ancient UNIX license cover more than
> last year's release?
> Greg
The US$100 SCO Ancient UNIX license had this clause:
The SOURCE CODE PRODUCTS to which SCO grants rights under this
Agreement are restricted to the following UNIX Operating Systems,
including SUCCESSOR OPERATING SYSTEMs, that operate on the 16-Bit
PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System
with specific exclusion of UNIX System V and successor operating
systems:
16-Bit UNIX Editions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
32-bit 32V
[ http://minnie.tuhs.org/PUPS/sco_license.txt ]
This implies that System III on the PDP11 is covered by this license,
as SCO has the legal rights to System III and it is a SUCCESSOR
OPERATING SYSTEM.
The BSD-style Caldera license has this clause:
The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are
limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the
16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System,
with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and
successor operating systems:
32-bit 32V UNIX
16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
[ http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf ]
So the new license specifically prohibits System III, whereas the Ancient UNIX
license implicitly permitted System III.
Warren
From grog@lemis.com Tue Mar 11 23:48:33 2003
From: grog@lemis.com (Greg 'groggy' Lehey)
Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 10:18:33 +1030
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <20030311232713.GA7295@minnie.tuhs.org>
References: <200303110843.h2B8hKtx002312@localhost.localdomain>
<20030311224500.GV45912@wantadilla.lemis.com>
<20030311232713.GA7295@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <20030311234833.GA78280@wantadilla.lemis.com>
On Wednesday, 12 March 2003 at 9:27:13 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 09:15:00AM +1030, Greg 'groggy' Lehey wrote:
>>> FWIW I too paid $100 for an ancient Unix license, and I've got the
>>> System III stuff that licensees had access to.
>>
>> Hmmm. That's a point. Does the Ancient UNIX license cover more than
>> last year's release?
>> Greg
>
> The US$100 SCO Ancient UNIX license had this clause:
>
> ...
>
> So the new license specifically prohibits System III, whereas the
> Ancient UNIX license implicitly permitted System III.
Heh. So we have something to show for our $100 after all :-)
Greg
--
Finger grog@lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
From cpg@aladdin.de Tue Mar 18 22:36:11 2003
From: cpg@aladdin.de (Christian Groessler)
Date: 18 Mar 2003 23:36:11 +0100
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
Message-ID: <87smtkb8v8.fsf@power.cnet.aladdin.de>
Hi,
On 03/12/2003 10:18:33 AM ZE10B "Greg 'groggy' Lehey" wrote:
>
>On Wednesday, 12 March 2003 at 9:27:13 +1000, Warren Toomey wrote:
>>
>> So the new license specifically prohibits System III, whereas the
>> Ancient UNIX license implicitly permitted System III.
>
>Heh. So we have something to show for our $100 after all :-)
Is System III somewhere in the archive for us $100 license owners?
regards,
chris
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Tue Mar 18 23:10:12 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:10:12 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <87smtkb8v8.fsf@power.cnet.aladdin.de>
References: <87smtkb8v8.fsf@power.cnet.aladdin.de>
Message-ID: <20030318231012.GC15253@minnie.tuhs.org>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:36:11PM +0100, Christian Groessler wrote:
> >Heh. So we have something to show for our $100 after all :-)
> Is System III somewhere in the archive for us $100 license owners?
> chris
Yes, send me a private e-mail and we can work out a transfer process.
Warren
From hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net Tue Mar 18 23:29:44 2003
From: hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net (Gregg C Levine)
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 18:29:44 -0500
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <20030318231012.GC15253@minnie.tuhs.org>
Message-ID: <000701c2eda6$422a07c0$27a3580c@who5>
Hello again from Gregg C Levine
Warren, ah, I think I missed something someplace. It happens that I
was able to download it, after clicking through the license that was
presented several days ago, when the argument regarding the SCO
lawsuit was part of a thread. Does this mean that I didn't have to go
through this?
-------------------
Gregg C Levine hansolofalcon@worldnet.att.net
------------------------------------------------------------
"The Force will be with you...Always." Obi-Wan Kenobi
"Use the Force, Luke." Obi-Wan Kenobi
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to General Obi-Wan Kenobi )
(This company dedicates this E-Mail to Master Yoda )
> -----Original Message-----
> From: tuhs-admin@minnie.tuhs.org [mailto:tuhs-admin@minnie.tuhs.org]
On
> Behalf Of Warren Toomey
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 6:10 PM
> To: The Unix Heritage Society
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
>
> On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 11:36:11PM +0100, Christian Groessler wrote:
> > >Heh. So we have something to show for our $100 after all :-)
> > Is System III somewhere in the archive for us $100 license owners?
> > chris
>
> Yes, send me a private e-mail and we can work out a transfer
process.
>
> Warren
> _______________________________________________
> TUHS mailing list
> TUHS@minnie.tuhs.org
> http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Wed Mar 19 01:24:30 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:24:30 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <000701c2eda6$422a07c0$27a3580c@who5>
References: <20030318231012.GC15253@minnie.tuhs.org>
<000701c2eda6$422a07c0$27a3580c@who5>
Message-ID: <20030319012430.GB19661@minnie.tuhs.org>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 06:29:44PM -0500, Gregg C Levine wrote:
> Warren, ah, I think I missed something someplace. It happens that I
> was able to download it, after clicking through the license that was
> presented several days ago, when the argument regarding the SCO
> lawsuit was part of a thread. Does this mean that I didn't have to go
> through this?
I'm saying that you can go directly to the SysIII source on Caldera's
website without agreeing to the click-through license. I e-mailed them
about this many many months ago, but they obviously haven't fixed it yet.
Warren
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Tue Mar 18 23:15:03 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 09:15:03 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SysIII from SCO/Caldera
Message-ID: <20030318231503.GD15253@minnie.tuhs.org>
8-)
Looks like Caldera are quite happy for you to obtain SysIII without signing
any license agreement.
http://www2.caldera.com/offers/ancient001/sysIII/
This is just a FYI. You would have to consider your legal position if
you did decide to download it.
Warren
From wkt@minnie.tuhs.org Wed Mar 19 01:22:44 2003
From: wkt@minnie.tuhs.org (Warren Toomey)
Date: Wed, 19 Mar 2003 11:22:44 +1000
Subject: [TUHS] SCO & Caldera?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0303181530250.17703-100000@gladen>
References: <20030318231012.GC15253@minnie.tuhs.org>
<Pine.LNX.4.44.0303181530250.17703-100000@gladen>
Message-ID: <20030319012244.GA19661@minnie.tuhs.org>
On Tue, Mar 18, 2003 at 03:31:55PM -0800, Andru Luvisi wrote:
> I don't have the $100 license, but I did get one of the click-through
> licenses.
Then I assume you would be safe to download SysIII from the SCO/Caldera page,
as long as the license covers that.
Warren