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 Sharpwrote: >> 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