Subject: Re: BREAKING NEWS - "Offending Code" Specified (LinuxWorld)(Printview)
To: NetBSD current list <current-users@NetBSD.org>
From: Greywolf <email@example.com>
Date: 12/23/2003 13:22:31
Thus spake Jeremy C. Reed ("JCR> ") sometime Today...
JCR> It seems like SCO doesn't care about if rewritten, but the ABI of having
JCR> same values, like ENOMEM is 12 and so on.
JCR> Our sys/errno.h and sys/signal.h says:
JCR> * (c) UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
JCR> * All or some portions of this file are derived from material licensed
JCR> * to the University of California by American Telephone and Telegraph
JCR> * Co. or Unix System Laboratories, Inc. and are reproduced herein with
JCR> * the permission of UNIX System Laboratories, Inc.
That looks like a pretty important phrase. Is SCO now equivalent to UNIX
JCR> I didn't look at others (stat.h, ctype.h, ioctls.h, ipc.h, acct.h,
JCR> a.out.h, ecoff.h) yet.
ioctls.h: not present, but
ecoff.h: not present
Considering we are using it with permission, unless:
- SCO == USL, AND
- SCO is going to rescind permission, AND
- SCO's claims have any basis in fact
I would suspect we've not much to worry about. Nonetheless, I'm a little
concerned out of habit (still have teeth marks on my brain from the days
of being Mentally Contaminated), so I'm asking how this all will affect
[Never mind the effect that the Broadband and Electronic On-Board
Copy Protection [DMR/Palladium/required hardware] are going to have on
Open Source as a whole if they pass...]
Rule #1 of Role Playing Gaming:
Never give the Gamemaster ideas.