SkyOS Now Runs Linux Binaries Natively

Gunder123 writes: "A new (open source in the past, but not anymore) operating system, SkyOS, in its latest version can run Linux binaries unmodified, without the need of a recompilation, enriching its own application base this way. Their Linux emulation layer lies inside the SkyOS kernel, I wonder if there are any GPL violations going on here. Their future plans involve also an emulation layer for Windows applications, pretty much what ReactOS tries to do for the last few years for the WindowsNT model."

Yeah, like WINE runs all windows binaries...

[rvaniwaa]

From the status page [skyos.org], it says only 6% of all linux syscalls are implemented...

Other Free OS alternatives

[ZaneMcAuley]

Solaris 9 (the beta is out) runs linux binaries.

Pros: its got good backing (who else puts the DOT in dotGone :) )

Cons: erm.. availability of code

Probably not a violation

[CmdrTroll]

My friend worked on the Linux binary compatibility for SCO Unixware a little while back. I asked him about the licensing implications of the effort at the time, and he told me that there were a couple of main points that kept them out of trouble:

• Limiting the emulation environment to Linux kernel syscalls was very safe legally and quite trivial. Why? You can't copyright or patent an interface. And the Linux syscall interface, while symantically slightly different from other Unices, does essentially the same thing as other Unices. Support for Linux sysctls and other oddball features was not considered, mostly because the only software that used Linux sysctls and other oddball features were the system startup scripts. For the most part, applications used the standard file, process control (fork, exec, getpid, ctime), and socket syscalls, and making a translation layer for those was cake.
• libc posed a bit of a potential problem because it is GPL. Fortunately, there is nothing keeping SCO or anyone else from bundling GPL software with their product, as long as they ship the source too and don't like closed-source binaries against the GPL libraries. Sun ships 'less' and GNOME with Solaris now, and nobody's talked about suing them for it.
• Statically linked binaries were ideal. They didn't need libc, the Linux loader, or any supporting files at all to run those things. All they needed was kernel support for Linux ELF files (which are a skewed version of standard ELF - check out the specs sometime). No problem there.

In all likelihood, the Linux ABI will become a standard for all non-Microsoft x86 operating systems. It is simple and legal to implement, and very robust and powerful.

-CT

Re:GPL violation

[dzeuthen]

Well, in fact a number of companies reverse engineered the IBM BIOS in the eighties and thus created the PC clone industry. Reverse engineering on the grounds of interoperability is actually allowed, even though some orgs do not like it.

Re:GPL violation

[shepd]

>I wonder how it's possible to write a "Linux Emulation Layer" without using the Linux source in a way that violates the GPL.

Same way as Compaq did it to "clone" the IBM BIOS. Poke stuff in, see what happens. Read technical manuals deviod of code. Get engineers in that haven't already written GPL code (untainted).

Running (basic) Linux binaries will be easy in comparison to hacking a copy of a BIOS without any idea of what it does -- or so I'm thinking.

Re:Why isn't it open source anymore?

[albat0r]

Taken from and interview on OSnews ( www.osnews.com [osnews.com]), here's the answer to your question:

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

For those who doesn't know, Robert Szeleney is the man behind SkyOS.

Re:Say WHAT?

[ijx]

Exactly. The *BSD's do exactly the same thing with their Linux compatibility layers. All the code behind that is BSD-licensed, not GPL'd.

There's an excellent set of articles at the O'Reilly Network [oreillynet.com] on just how they accomplish this [onlamp.com].

From the horses mouth...

[gosand]

From the author himself, in an interview:

5. Do you accept help and source code or bug fixes from third parties? Do you put restrictions to third parties regarding coding style etc?

Robert Szeleney: Until version 3.0, SkyOS was open source. But now, I don`t want SkyOS to be open source. I put so many work into this project, that I don`t want to give to source away. But I accept project members. If someone want to code for SkyOS he can have source. Also, I accept source codes and bugfixes for SkyOS. I don`t put restrictions for coding style. If someone coded for example a new driver, I will change the code to fit into the whole SkyOS coding style.

gosand [poundingsand.com] (bracing for the "all your base" comments)

Reading Slashdot articles 101

[gblues]

Even though editors approve stories, people seem to forget that the part in italics is the words of the submission, not the editor. Yes, the suggestion was rude, but the suggestion came from a slashdot reader, not from the editor(s)!

Nathan

Re:Do what is right!

[sydb]

GFS / OpenGFS

Re:GPL violation

[dzeuthen]

Yup, Phoenix did it on contract for Compaq, and according to the The EmuFAQ [jump.org] the case was tried for copyright infringement and "The courts are unable to find any proprietary IBM microcode within the Phoenix BIOS. Phoenix is cleared of all charges, and the "clean room" reverse engineering technique becomes a legitimate bulletproof means of software developement."

Well, sort of legitimate IMHO ;-)

Re:Why SkyOS?

[Arandir]

...operating systems that are not Free as in speech.

It's statements like that which make the rest of the world suspect we are a brainwashed cult just waiting for the Koolaid to arrive.

The right to free speech is a right that belongs to the speaker, and not to the listener. Linux is a manifestation of Linus Torvald's free speech. SkyOS is a manifestation of its authors' free speech. Any OS is a product of its authors' free speech. You have your own right of free speech but it is not predicated upon the existance of any operating system.

It would make sense to say that you only want operating systems that are "Free Software", or operating systems that are "Open Source", or operating systems that grant you specific permissions. But to say that you only want operating systems that are "free as in speech" is a non sequitur. It only makes sense if you have undergone the GNU Indoctrination Protocols, as it is not a sensible English phrase.

(considering that most Slashdot readers are openly hostile toward non-Linux Free Software operating systems, like OpenBSD, I think the original supposition was a correct evaluation of the Slashdot attitudes)

Pedantic mode on

[mandolin]

Windows runs Linux binaries (LIME project)

That's LINE, http://line.sourceforge.net/

(Pedantic mode off)