4 ms·

Did they get a license from Novell for this or is this as illegal as many of the other emulator sites with copyrighted software on them? Considering the page do

Did they get a license from Novell for this or is this as illegal as many of the other emulator sites with copyrighted software on them? Considering the page doesn't mention it, I'm leaning towards it being copyright infringement.

LukeShu 10mo ago
In 2002, Caldera licensed Research Unix <= 7th edition and 32-bit 32V Unix under a BSD-style license. Gotta stick the "This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." notice on it though.
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  This copy of Unix v4 came from AT&T and not one of the freely licensed ones Caldera released. Caldera may own the rights now for this unearthed copy, but I am not aware that they have provided licenses for this new release.
  - spijdar 10mo ago
    If your argument is that Caldera might not actually have the rights to UNIX in the first place to grant the license, that's fair. But the license they provided (http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf) explicitly names versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of UNIX for the 16-bit PDP-11. Yes, these versions originated at AT&T (Bell Labs) but are distinct legally from SysIII and SysV UNIX, also from AT&T, which are explicitly not covered by the Caldera license.
    - charcircuit 10mo ago
      Thank you for finding this. >Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice The archived tape doesn't have this, which contradicts the license. This makes me think the license may only be referring to a set of source code that they released with this license text already applied as opposed to what was recently archived. >Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice I don't see the copyright notice on that page. So at the very least that may need to be added.
      - dekhn 10mo ago
        Why do you care about this so much?
        charcircuit 10mo ago
        Because I think the history of rights ownership and licensing is interesting.
        qarl 10mo ago
        You might also enjoy arguing.
    - msla 10mo ago
      > If your argument is that Caldera might not actually have the rights to UNIX in the first place to grant the license, that's fair. Yeah, everyone knows Unix is owned by SCO, just like C++, Linux, and the look on your face, which is priceless. (So help me, SCO claimed to own C++ at one point: https://lwn.net/Articles/39227/ https://lwn.net/Articles/39227/ > C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO's SCOsource licensing program. Maybe they claimed to own an implementation of C++ but it would be typical of them to claim to own the moon and sun and be sublicensing the stars to God.)
fortyseven 10mo ago
Personal financial stake in this, or do you regularly police the use of ancient software?
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  >Personal financial stake in this In the sense that the company I work for would be financially harmed if copyright infringement of software was freely allowed. I benefit from the ability of people being able to sell rights to use software. It's one thing to digitize and archive ancient software, it's another thing to allow people to freely use it without acquiring the proper license for it.
  - LastTrain 10mo ago
    I mean if you are assigning points I’d actually say the former is worse than the latter.
  - II2II 10mo ago
    The people who preserve vintage software typically respect boundaries in order to avoid cases where the copyright holder would be financially harmed. It is not a perfect guarantee, but it is a reasonable one. Hardline stances usually cause more harm than good anyhow. I remember collecting Apple II gear in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The people saying that any form of copyright infringement was bad were either ignored or flamed since a lot of people just looked at their collection of software from the late 1970's and early 1980's and said, "we're at risk of losing this if we don't make it available, and the copyright holders won't lose anything if we do make it available." Which wasn't strictly true since there were some software developers who created software in the early 1990's who were still selling it. Unfortunately their absolutist attitude did not earn them many allies, so it became a lost cause.
  - kube-system 10mo ago
    I’m normally one defending copyright on this forum. But dude, this software is half a century old. Nobody is buying or selling this software. Nobody’s business or livelihood is threatened by this.
publicdebates 10mo ago
What do you think about GOG?
- charcircuit 10mo ago
  It's good to have competition against Steam.
- yunnpp 10mo ago
  GOG is perfectly legal.
- unit149 10mo ago
  [dead]

LukeShu 10mo ago

In 2002, Caldera licensed Research Unix <= 7th edition and 32-bit 32V Unix under a BSD-style license. Gotta stick the "This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc." notice on it though.

charcircuit 10mo ago
This copy of Unix v4 came from AT&T and not one of the freely licensed ones Caldera released. Caldera may own the rights now for this unearthed copy, but I am not aware that they have provided licenses for this new release.
- spijdar 10mo ago
  If your argument is that Caldera might not actually have the rights to UNIX in the first place to grant the license, that's fair. But the license they provided (http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/ancient-source-all.pdf) explicitly names versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of UNIX for the 16-bit PDP-11. Yes, these versions originated at AT&T (Bell Labs) but are distinct legally from SysIII and SysV UNIX, also from AT&T, which are explicitly not covered by the Caldera license.
  - charcircuit 10mo ago
    Thank you for finding this. >Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice The archived tape doesn't have this, which contradicts the license. This makes me think the license may only be referring to a set of source code that they released with this license text already applied as opposed to what was recently archived. >Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice I don't see the copyright notice on that page. So at the very least that may need to be added.
    - dekhn 10mo ago
      Why do you care about this so much?
      - charcircuit 10mo ago
        Because I think the history of rights ownership and licensing is interesting.
        qarl 10mo ago
        You might also enjoy arguing.
  - msla 10mo ago
    > If your argument is that Caldera might not actually have the rights to UNIX in the first place to grant the license, that's fair. Yeah, everyone knows Unix is owned by SCO, just like C++, Linux, and the look on your face, which is priceless. (So help me, SCO claimed to own C++ at one point: https://lwn.net/Articles/39227/ https://lwn.net/Articles/39227/ > C++ is one of the properties that SCO owns today and we frequently are approached by customers who wish to license C++ from us and we do charge for that. Those arrangements are done on a case-by-case basis with each customer and are not disclosed publicly. C++ licensing is currently part of SCO's SCOsource licensing program. Maybe they claimed to own an implementation of C++ but it would be typical of them to claim to own the moon and sun and be sublicensing the stars to God.)

fortyseven 10mo ago

Personal financial stake in this, or do you regularly police the use of ancient software?

charcircuit 10mo ago
>Personal financial stake in this In the sense that the company I work for would be financially harmed if copyright infringement of software was freely allowed. I benefit from the ability of people being able to sell rights to use software. It's one thing to digitize and archive ancient software, it's another thing to allow people to freely use it without acquiring the proper license for it.
- LastTrain 10mo ago
  I mean if you are assigning points I’d actually say the former is worse than the latter.
- II2II 10mo ago
  The people who preserve vintage software typically respect boundaries in order to avoid cases where the copyright holder would be financially harmed. It is not a perfect guarantee, but it is a reasonable one. Hardline stances usually cause more harm than good anyhow. I remember collecting Apple II gear in the late 1990's and early 2000's. The people saying that any form of copyright infringement was bad were either ignored or flamed since a lot of people just looked at their collection of software from the late 1970's and early 1980's and said, "we're at risk of losing this if we don't make it available, and the copyright holders won't lose anything if we do make it available." Which wasn't strictly true since there were some software developers who created software in the early 1990's who were still selling it. Unfortunately their absolutist attitude did not earn them many allies, so it became a lost cause.
- kube-system 10mo ago
  I’m normally one defending copyright on this forum. But dude, this software is half a century old. Nobody is buying or selling this software. Nobody’s business or livelihood is threatened by this.

publicdebates 10mo ago

What do you think about GOG?

charcircuit 10mo ago
It's good to have competition against Steam.
yunnpp 10mo ago
GOG is perfectly legal.
unit149 10mo ago
[dead]