Net Integration's NITIX OS

[Jonathan Hale]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Hal Duston" <hduston at speedscript.com>
To: "Kclug" <kclug at kclug.org>
Sent: Sunday, January 18, 2004 2:29 AM
Subject: Re: Net Integration's NITIX OS

> Hrmm, this technique sounds rather familiar. .. .. .. Thinking .. ..
..
> Oh yes:
>
>      Dear IBM,
>
>      You have stolen code from us, but we can't actually
>      prove it.  Please give us all your source code so
>      that we can find out for certain if you have in fact
>      stolen code from us.
>
>      Sincerely,
>      SCO

My God!  Hal just compared me to SCO! *l*
As I read it, section 2b of the GPL reads "You must cause any work that
you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is
derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole
at no charge to_all_third_parties under the terms of this License."
This does not mean their entire OS--just the parts that derive, in whole
or in part, from Linux.
Personally, I would just like to see how they did it so I can compare it
with other hardened and minimal Linux OS implementations and scripts
like Bastille, Immunix, LRP, SE Linux, and Trustix, which are all
publicly available for download.
And, right now, I have a pet peave with companies trying to build on the
merits, reputation, and strengths of Linux with no apparent effort to
give back to the Open Source community.  And with companies who think
they can make it proprietary by obscuring its Open Source underpinnings.
I am not at liberty to discuss why in a public forum, but if you email
me offlist I will tell you exactly why.  As I see it, technically, they
(not necessarily referring to Net Integration) may be following the
letter of the law, but I most definitely feel that they are NOT
following the spirit of the law.
I also realize that section 3 of the GPL gives them three options for
compliance.  And I know that not only could I be misinterpreting the
GPL, but also, they do not have to give the code to ME.  That is why I
cc'd others and suggested that they contact the original author if they
have not already done so.  (Though, I'm just supposed to take their word
for it that they did that?)  So far as I know, SCO has not offered to
let IBM provide their code to Dennis Ritchie or AT&T or some other
interested third party for review.