DU Licensing ramifications
Greg Lindahl
> netscape.
Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
> It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> scheme:
Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
and it would be wrong.
-- g
--
To unsubscribe: send e-mail to axp-list...@redhat.com with
'unsubscribe' as the subject. Do not send it to axp-...@redhat.com
Chris Price
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Greg Lindahl wrote:
> > There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
> > netscape.
>
> Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
> netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
>
> > It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> > to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> > case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> > scheme:
>
> Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
> and it would be wrong.
>
So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
I think clarification from DEC would be in order (or instructions
on how to seek clarification :) ).
Thanks
Art Stine
> This university has several machines that are running various
> versions of DU, but each license is of the 'per CPU' variety, no site
> license is in place.
>
> It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> scheme:
As I've read DEC's licensing, it is a breach for you to copy the
libraries/binaries to another unlicense machine to use them as you desire.
>
> Via NFS, mount the /usr/shlib directory on the departments main
> server on each UDB as /usr/shlib. We would also place a copy of /sbin
> /loader in the /usr/shlib directory on the main DU server. On each UDB, a
> softlink from /sbin/loader would point at the NFS mounted /usr/shlib.
>
> Our questions is: would this scheme be allowable under the
> OS/Software licenses in place for the Servers copy of DU?
Whether you make them available on the local disk or via NFS doesn't
change the licensing - you are still using the binary components
(libraries and binaries) on a non-licensed platform. Just because they
physically reside on the DU machine doesn't make what you are trying to do
any more legal.
-art
Art Stine
> So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
its different because the application is running on the DU server, using
licensed libraries on that machine. It doesn't matter where you display
the app - think of a remote X display as being nothing more than a
terminal.
> > I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
> me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
> then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
> in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
I don't think ECOFF support was put into the kernel so that folks could
ripoff DEC's licensed software. You could certainly buy a DU license to do
it legally or if you have an existing DU license you are not using, then
you could probably legally use it to run the components you want under
Linux (I would check the language of the license w/ your legal folks &
DEC first though). If you had a site license for DU, it would make things
legally easier, I'm sure.
Just because its technically possible to run the DU stuff under Linux
doesn't mean its always legal.
Bart-Jan Vrielink
> > > There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
> > > netscape.
> >
> > Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
> > netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
>
> We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
> stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
>
>
> >
> > > It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> > > to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> > > case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> > > scheme:
> >
> > Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
> > and it would be wrong.
> >
>
> So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
I don't really know the DU licence, but I think it says something like
that it should only run (or execute) on the licenced CPU, so NFS is not
included (on the other hand, I think you are completely legal if you
install the libs on your UDB and NFS mount these on your DU machine, but
that's not really what you want...)
>
> I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
> me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
> then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
> in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
Think about statically built binaries, without the ECOFF support they will
fail to run, but with ECOFF support they will.
Then think of , as you can tell from the numerous discussions on this
list, the speed difference between GCC and friends and the (FORTRAN)
compilers available under DU.
> I think clarification from DEC would be in order (or instructions
> on how to seek clarification :) ).
Tot ziens,
--
Bart-Jan Vrielink <b.j.vr...@de-boulevard.nl>
De Boulevard Electronic Commerce - IT Developer
Tel. +31 53 4836377 - Fax. +31 53 4836378
Jay.Es...@digital.com
>>> Chris Price said:
>
> So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
The license is normally on a strictly per-machine basis; if you have a
license to run DU on a particular box, that license does NOT extend to any
other boxes (note that site licenses *may* allow this, depending on the
license terms).
Many people do run Netscape remotely, from a DU box or an Intel/Linux box;
so long as the machine that actually executes the DU binaries/libraries has
the appropriate license, there's nothing illegal.
> I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel.
The FAQ is there specifically for those folk that *do* own the appropriate
license for the given box. Many of the "legacy" machines now running LINUX
started life running DU, and the license is usually still valid for them.
ECOFF support is in the kernel because that's the format that Alpha Linux
first used, and there's not much expense keeping it around, regardless of
the legality of running DU (ECOFF) binaries. If you don't want it, you can
always leave it out during kernel build configuration.
> You cannot suppose to tell
> me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
> then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
> in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
No, that's something I don't propose to tell/sell you... ;-}
--Jay++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Non Sequitur Society: we don't make sense, but we do like pizza...
Jay A Estabrook Alpha Motherboards - LINUX Project
Digital Equipment Corp. (508) 841-3241 or (DTN) 237-3241
334 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Jay.Es...@digital.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill Rugolsky Jr.
1. If I link a program statically against the DU libraries,
am I allowed to run it on an unlicensed CPU? Probably not,
I'd expect, though it seems that that may not be stopping
some Beowulf users that own DEC compilers, unless they all
have DU site licenses.
2. If the answer to (1) is yes, what happens if I relink
a commercial executable statically? The standard tool chain
doesn't provide this functionality, but it is not terribly
difficult to implement (for example, using ATOM or an Alpha
port of EEL, the Executable Editing Library).
If the answer to two is yes, then in principle one could create
statically linked versions of Netscape or other programs. I
don't advocate this, as I think it violates the spirit of the
license, but then licenses are the domain of lawyers. :-)
Jim Paradis
> am I allowed to run it on an unlicensed CPU? Probably not,
> I'd expect, though it seems that that may not be stopping
> some Beowulf users that own DEC compilers, unless they all
> have DU site licenses.
Correct; legally you may *not* run statically-linked DU executables on
a non-licensed system. While it's highly unlikely that anyone in a
position to turn you in to the Software Police will *notice* that you're
doing so, it's still a technical violation of your Digital licensing
agreement.
FYI - the reason the ECOFF capability exists in Linux/Alpha dates back
to the first days when we were bootstrapping the development environment.
It was intended primarily to allow us to build GNU tools on Digital
UNIX and run them on Linux/Alpha. Being able to run commercial binaries
is a possibly-useful side-effect, but it wasn't why we did it.
As for a Linux/Alpha browser, I've been using Mozilla with not too many
glitches... It's not perfect, and it doesn't have all the bells-and-whistles
of Netscape, but it's getting there...
--
Jim Paradis (par...@linux01.hlo.dec.com) "The early bird gets the worm.
Compaq Computer Corporation If you want something else for
(508)841-3243 breakfast, get up later."
http://www.tiac.net/users/jrp/index.html
Jay.Es...@digital.com
>>> Bill Rugolsky Jr. said:
> Two questions:
>
> 1. If I link a program statically against the DU libraries,
> am I allowed to run it on an unlicensed CPU? Probably not,
> I'd expect, though it seems that that may not be stopping
> some Beowulf users that own DEC compilers, unless they all
> have DU site licenses.
No, you are NOT allowed to run it on an unlicensed CPU; a statically linked
binary will still have C library routines bound into it, and it is those
routines which are encumbered.
Two alternatives:
1. Generate some Alpha Linux shared libraries that can stand in for the
DU versions.
2. generate some unencumbered ECOFF static libraries that could be linked
statically (somehow) to the DU Netscape binary.
--Jay++
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
American Non Sequitur Society: we don't make sense, but we do like pizza...
Jay A Estabrook Alpha Motherboards - LINUX Project
Digital Equipment Corp. (508) 841-3241 or (DTN) 237-3241
334 South Street, Shrewsbury, MA 01545 Jay.Es...@digital.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Baker
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Bart-Jan Vrielink wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Chris Price wrote:
>
> > > > There is one other program we would like to run on each machine ->
> > > > netscape.
> > >
> > > Various people have compiled various versions of the new open-source
> > > netscape natively for Alpha/Linux. Try that.
> >
> > We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
> > stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
#1 What is the most stable version?
#2 Does anyone have a list of available Netscapes for alpha?
> >
> >
> > >
> > > > It is our assumption that copying the libraries and binary form DU
> > > > to Linux/AXP is a breach of the software/OS license. If that truly is the
> > > > case (someone please clarify if you can), we would propose the following
> > > > scheme:
> > >
> > > Yes. No, judges tend to take a dim view of such obvious workarounds,
> > > and it would be wrong.
> > >
> >
> > So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> > netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> > UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
>
> I don't really know the DU licence, but I think it says something like
> that it should only run (or execute) on the licenced CPU, so NFS is not
> included (on the other hand, I think you are completely legal if you
> install the libs on your UDB and NFS mount these on your DU machine, but
> that's not really what you want...)
>
> >
> > I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> > libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> > someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
> > me that their idea was that everyone would install Linux (for free) and
> > then go out and buy a DEC Unix license to get the libraries( for $1,000's)
> > in order to run DEC Unix binaries?
>
> Think about statically built binaries, without the ECOFF support they will
> fail to run, but with ECOFF support they will.
> Then think of , as you can tell from the numerous discussions on this
> list, the speed difference between GCC and friends and the (FORTRAN)
> compilers available under DU.
Why didn't netscape just build netscape staticaly linked? Wouldn't that
have made our lives much better? Is it illegal because it contains DEC
libs? In which case the ECOFF support argument for static stuff goes down
the tube...
> > > I think clarification from DEC would be in order (or instructions
> > on how to seek clarification :) ).
>
> Tot ziens,
>
> --
> Bart-Jan Vrielink <b.j.vr...@de-boulevard.nl>
> De Boulevard Electronic Commerce - IT Developer
> Tel. +31 53 4836377 - Fax. +31 53 4836378
>
>
Keith Baker
not mistaken it used Motif staticaly liked... Am I right?... If #2 is
true will someone please relink Du netscape :) it is more stable...
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Bill Rugolsky Jr. wrote:
> Two questions:
>
> 1. If I link a program statically against the DU libraries,
> am I allowed to run it on an unlicensed CPU? Probably not,
> I'd expect, though it seems that that may not be stopping
> some Beowulf users that own DEC compilers, unless they all
> have DU site licenses.
>
> 2. If the answer to (1) is yes, what happens if I relink
> a commercial executable statically? The standard tool chain
> doesn't provide this functionality, but it is not terribly
> difficult to implement (for example, using ATOM or an Alpha
> port of EEL, the Executable Editing Library).
>
> If the answer to two is yes, then in principle one could create
> statically linked versions of Netscape or other programs. I
> don't advocate this, as I think it violates the spirit of the
> license, but then licenses are the domain of lawyers. :-)
>
>
>
>
>
William T Wilson
> We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
> stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
At least you can count on it improving... :)
> So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
The difference in this case is that, when sending the output of a running
Netscape program to an X-terminal, no actual library code is ever stored
or run on an unlicensed system. The DU licenses don't care what the
programs running under DU do once they're running, they are only concerned
with the libraries themselves and where they are running. Restricting the
display from Netscape being redirected to a X-terminal would be like
claiming you had to buy a DU license for your printer if you wanted hard
copy.
> I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
Because there are people who have legitimate reason to own DU libraries
but happen to run Linux instead for one reason or another. Many of the
Alpha developers fall into this category. (Who do you suppose developed
AXP/Linux at first, other than DU owners?) There are also people who used
to run DU on their Alphas but stopped because they like Linux better.
Linux is a better OS, only DU owners have some more software available to
them.
For example, in my case, I wanted to run MySQL but it simply refuses to
run under Digital Unix. So I still have DU lying around, but right now,
my priority is getting MySQL going. It runs decently under Linux. Maybe
I can run DU Oracle on it, too. (Hey, SCO Oracle is reputed to run under
Linux/x86...)
William T Wilson
> Well in the case of #2 I hope you never used Netscape/intel... if I am
> not mistaken it used Motif staticaly liked... Am I right?... If #2 is
> true will someone please relink Du netscape :) it is more stable...
The licensing for Motif is different from the licensing for DU libraries.
It is possible to purchase a license for Motif which allows distribution
of statically linked libraries. No such license for DU exists.
Presumably Motif believes that such a license will encourage people to
write for Motif (or they're just being helpful). Digital on the other
hand (rightly) concludes that allowing such a license would only reduce
sales of Digital Unix. (Although we've heard here that it's more that
they don't want to support the libraries, than that they are afraid of
losing sales).
Chris Price
On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, William T Wilson wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Jul 1998, Chris Price wrote:
>
> > We have, and frankly we have found that they do not have the
> > stability we need in a 24x7 lab environment (very limited staffing)..
>
> At least you can count on it improving... :)
This I wholeheartedly agree with!
>
> > So what is different about mounting the libraries NFS, or running
> > netscape on the main DU server and sending it via the X protocol to the
> > UDB's? Where exactly does the License begin and end???
>
> The difference in this case is that, when sending the output of a running
> Netscape program to an X-terminal, no actual library code is ever stored
> or run on an unlicensed system. The DU licenses don't care what the
> programs running under DU do once they're running, they are only concerned
> with the libraries themselves and where they are running. Restricting the
> display from Netscape being redirected to a X-terminal would be like
> claiming you had to buy a DU license for your printer if you wanted hard
> copy.
>
Excellent analogy.
> > I guess my other questions is: If we cannot use the DEC Unix
> > libraries, why is there info in the FAQ on how to perform it, and why did
> > someone code the ECOFF support into the kernel. You cannot suppose to tell
>
> Because there are people who have legitimate reason to own DU libraries
> but happen to run Linux instead for one reason or another. Many of the
> Alpha developers fall into this category. (Who do you suppose developed
> AXP/Linux at first, other than DU owners?) There are also people who used
> to run DU on their Alphas but stopped because they like Linux better.
> Linux is a better OS, only DU owners have some more software available to
> them.
>
Myself being one of those fortunate to own an uninstalled licensed
version of 4.0b. Maybe my luck in owning a DU license taints my view of
how easy DU Netscape is to install and run.
> For example, in my case, I wanted to run MySQL but it simply refuses to
> run under Digital Unix. So I still have DU lying around, but right now,
> my priority is getting MySQL going. It runs decently under Linux. Maybe
> I can run DU Oracle on it, too. (Hey, SCO Oracle is reputed to run under
> Linux/x86...)
>
Rumor has it that there are ports for Linux coming from Oracle.
The $1M question is: WHEN?
Thanks to everyone for their input into this discussion.
Chris
William T Wilson
> Rumor has it that there are ports for Linux coming from Oracle.
> The $1M question is: WHEN?
There is a small group of Linux enthusasts at Oracle (just as there seems
to be everywhere else. :) ). Unfortunately, Oracle management doesn't
seem very interested in porting to Linux. The problem is not the
technical feasibility of doing the port. The actual port itself could
probably be done in under a week. Some say that such a port exists, but
management refuses to sell it. Microsoft has probably paid them off. ;)
Art Stine
> There is a small group of Linux enthusasts at Oracle (just as there seems
> to be everywhere else. :) ). Unfortunately, Oracle management doesn't
> seem very interested in porting to Linux. The problem is not the
> technical feasibility of doing the port. The actual port itself could
> probably be done in under a week. Some say that such a port exists, but
> management refuses to sell it. Microsoft has probably paid them off. ;)
Heh - If MS offered Larry Ellison $$ to not port to Linux, Larry would
make sure all Oracle SW was up and running and available to the market
very quickly, just to spite BillG. Ellison hates Bill will a passion...
anything he can do to be a thorn in Bill's side he would love.
Now, all we gotta do is somehow get MS to make that offer to Oracle ;-)
-art
Quant-X Alpha Linux Support
> with the libraries themselves and where they are running. Restricting the
> display from Netscape being redirected to a X-terminal would be like
> claiming you had to buy a DU license for your printer if you wanted hard
> copy.
Hmm, I have only a Postscript license for my printer, but
you can play it the hard way with DU, too.
Just look at LAT (Local Area Transport), a proprietary non routable
(bad bridgeable; timing critial) protocol made by Digital.
Okay, there is no reason for using this anymore, but if you want it,
just buy a printserver (ex: Lantronix EPS2p2) or a
fancy terminal-server (ex: Equinox ELS 16) or a
terminal-emulation (KEATerm) and don't forget to order
the expensive paper key for LAT...
Again: The LAT license for your DU box is included, but not
for your other equipment.
So the problem of needing a license for equipment is
protocol dependent.
--
Quant-X Service & Ph: (+43) 4212 6004-0
Consulting Ges.m.b.H. Fax: (+43) 4212 600420
http://www.quant-x.com Email: sup...@quant-x.com
Greg Lindahl
> > statically (somehow) to the DU Netscape binary.
>
> software available. How much work do you suppose it would be to get an
> unencumbered library suite running under DU? I suppose some sort of
> loader would also be necessary (I'm not very familiar with this software
> level, so forgive my ignorance).
In theory, glibc and the new libm and etc. would be plenty to generate
a suitable library. The output of the Digital compiler compiling user
code isn't copyright, only the libraries.
-- g
Paul Chapman
>Two alternatives:
>
>1. Generate some Alpha Linux shared libraries that can stand in for the
> DU versions.
>
>2. generate some unencumbered ECOFF static libraries that could be linked
> statically (somehow) to the DU Netscape binary.
The second alternative sounds attractive if you have the source for your
software available. How much work do you suppose it would be to get an
unencumbered library suite running under DU? I suppose some sort of
loader would also be necessary (I'm not very familiar with this software
level, so forgive my ignorance).