On Sunday, 27 July 2003 at 10:51:29 +1000, Con Zymaris wrote: > On 26 Jul 2003 21:30:59 +1000, Bojan Smojver wrote: >> >> I have downloaded the Linux kernel source RPM from SCO's FTP site today, >> 26 July 2003. I have done that from this location: >> >> ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/current/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm Hmm, I've checked this. This is a symlink: the correct URL is ftp://ftp.caldera.com/pub/updates/OpenLinux/3.1.1/Server/CSSA-2003-020.0/SRPMS/linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm. But yes, it appears to contain a somewhat dated version of Linux: -rw-r--r-- 1 ftp ftp 26701141 May 9 17:51 linux-2.4.13-21S.src.rpm This is three days before they announced that Linux was an unauthorized derivative of UNIX. They don't seem to have anything more recent. >> I have checked just now and the RPM still seems to be available. I have >> also documented this on my site here: >> >> http://www.rexursive.com/news.html#scodistributeslinux >> >> If this is of any use or interest to you guys, feel free to use this >> information or contact me if you need anything else. > > I would suggest that AUUG and LA prep a media release alerting the local > media that SCO have been telling porkies. No, what they're doing is being inconsistent. I'm sure it wasn't intentional. If we say anything, they'll just remove it from the ftp site. > Not only did SCO not stop distributing the complete Linux kernel > when they say they did, they continue to distribute it now, under a > regime indicatating the GPL as the only licence applicable to the > RPM package contents. This is passive distribution. I think there are better things to focus on in this issue. For example, the implications of their statement last week. I have also spoken to the ACCC and put in a (personal) complaint. It might help if a lot of people call the ACCC (http://www.accc.gov.au/about/contact1.htm#complaints, phone number 1300 302 502) and also complain, in particular about causing FUD, which they're doing already. The trouble is that they don't yet appear to be doing anything illegal. They haven't made any statement at all in Australia. Even if they were to demand license fees, it would only be illegal if it could be shown that they did not, indeed, own Linux. We know that they don't, but the courts don't. I'm sure there's something to be done here. The trouble is that the Trades Practices Act (http://scaleplus.law.gov.au/cgi-bin/download.pl?/scale/data/pasteact/0/115) is enormous. There's also a summary (only 80 pages) at http://www.accc.gov.au/pubs/Publications/Corporate/Summary_of_TPA.pdf. I'm trying to interest some lawyers in the issue, so far with only limited success. Greg -- See complete headers for address and phone numbers
Attachment:
pgp00002.pgp
Description: PGP signature