[Talk] SCO Linux kernel still being distributed
Greg 'groggy' Lehey
Greg.Lehey at auug.org.au
Sun Jul 27 11:30:03 EST 2003
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:
Hmm, I've checked this. This is a symlink: the correct URL is
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
>> I have checked just now and the RPM still seems to be available. I have
>> also documented this on my site here:
>> 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
> 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
is enormous. There's also a summary (only 80 pages) at
I'm trying to interest some lawyers in the issue, so far with only
See complete headers for address and phone numbers
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the Talk