Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Linux Software

"Stolen" SCO Linux Code Snippets Leaked 1180

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the we-gotta-figure-this-one-out dept.
stere0 writes "An article (in German) published on the German IT news site Heise includes two pictures (1, 2) of the "stolen" source code SCO claims to be theirs. Part of the first screenshot has been scrambled, the font has probably just been changed to Symbol; can anybody decipher it? I searched for the code snippets on Google. The code does indeed come from the kernel; the photographs show what seems to be lines 88-102 and 109-123 of /arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c from the 2.4 kernel tree. " Update: 08/19 16:39 GMT by M : LWN has a nice piece tracing the origins of the disputed code, and showing that SCO is simply lying.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Stolen" SCO Linux Code Snippets Leaked

Comments Filter:
  • oh no! (Score:4, Funny)

    by krisp (59093) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:43AM (#6733515) Homepage
    Quick, bust out vi and change all the variable names!
    • Re:oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

      by BohKnower (586304) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:57AM (#6733776) Homepage
      Every college student knows that you must change comments and variable names of the code you copy.

      How could the IBM engineers miss it.

      • Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Arker (91948) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:00PM (#6733850) Homepage

        Every college student knows that you must change comments and variable names of the code you copy.

        How could the IBM engineers miss it.

        Obviously they were silly enough to believe that since they had every legal right to copy it, they didn't need to hide the copying.

        No one expects the spanish inquisition!?

      • Re:oh no! (Score:5, Funny)

        by captain_craptacular (580116) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:40PM (#6734388)
        The problem is IBM only hires the top 5% of any given graduating class. Basically if you don't have a 3.75+ GPA, forget about it. Therefore they hire all the geeks who never considered cheating and don't know how to get by in the real world. If they just hired a real person as a "conformance officer" occasionally, such trivial mistakes wouldn't slip by.
        • Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)

          by QuackQuack (550293) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @02:27PM (#6735608) Journal
          In my school, the people in CS who got the 3.75+ GPAs were the professional students, who were only willing to learn what would help them on the exams, but not anything useful. If it wasn't going to help them on their exam, or help them complete projects. they simply didn't want to know about it.

          The "real" geeks who really cared about CS, didn't always score quite so high, but they had a passion for computers, and therefore learned things outside the curriculum and picked up more useful skills, tended to spend their free time "tinkering", and therefore their grades in other requisite Liberal Arts courses may have suffered a bit.

          At one point, we had a professor for an "Operating Systems" course, who had lots of real world experience, and his teaching style was less academic and more focused more the real-world. This drove the "3.75+ professional students" crazy. They didn't know how to study for his course, because they actually had to think in ways they weren't used to. His course threatened their GPAs, so they protested. The "geeks" loved his course and got straight A's in it. Too bad the instructor was a bit of a push-over on grading, and ended up bending to the other students' demands, and ended pushing up their grades more than they deserved.

          I'm not saying that everyone who has a high GPA is this kind of student. I'm just saying I wouldn't decide who to hire based on GPA alone, from on my personal experience.
    • Stealing? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Steeltoe (98226) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @02:09PM (#6735407) Homepage
      I find it sad to see how many here call sharing code for stealing. Without sharing code, there can be no further progress on computer science. Instead of having ad-hoc solutions, it can evolve into a fully fledged engineering science. But only if people can collaborate on standards and further its progress instead of being busy putting up tool-booths for inventing the inevitable.

      You never drive over a bridge proprietary to BigCorporation(R)(TM)(C). You drive over an assembled construction errected by standardized plans, tools and mass. Instead, we have a mad goldrush that sinks the economy through the floor.

      Sad.
  • by *igor* (34968) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:44AM (#6733532)
    * As part of the kernel evolution toward modular naming, the
    * functions malloc, and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
    * Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembly code:
    * (also see mfree/rmfree below)
    */
    • by johny_qst (623876) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:51AM (#6733665) Journal
      As all that they are demonstrating is a few lines of comments from their system v code where is the IP infringement? Comments may be part of the source, but am I wrong in assuming that comments are not included in the 'IP' concept that is being argued in SCO's case? If I copied just the notes in the margins of one of davinci's notebooks into the margins of my copy of 'stranger in a strange land 2: a parody by me' would that be infringement? Is SCO's claim really this weak, or are we really not going to see Code before IBM's lawyers drag it out of the SCO lawyers in an actual courtroom?
      • by cmdr_beeftaco (562067) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:41PM (#6734405)
        Are you claiming that Linux is just a parody of Unix?
    • by Yohahn (8680) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:52AM (#6733689) Homepage
      Others agree, they've been chatting about this on Linux weekly news:

      see here [lwn.net]
      • by albalbo (33890) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:01PM (#6733861) Homepage
        Consensus is that it's the obfuscation technique they've used to hide bits of code they didn't want to show. Heh, real-life rot-0 encryption :o)

        The comments that have been obscured have been translated by numerous people, and the comments don't appear in any public source known to Google. Therefore, it seems to be genuine proprietary Unix that it comes from.

        I wonder if anyone else took pictures of the presentation - apparently, there was a lot of 'obscured' code in the samples they were showing. It would be quite interesting to know what code was obscured: so far, none of the obscured code is in the Linux kernel, which is odd given that it was 'copied line-by-line'. If it was indeed copied, I would expect more than just the stuff which is already public domain.
    • by hcetSJ (672210) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:14PM (#6734057)
      They can't use Symbol font as a substitution cypher!!! I did that in 3rd grade!!! I demand they pay me $699 for each character encrypted with the Symbol Font Substitution Cypher (tm)(R)(c)(MD)(DDS)!!!
  • Location in Sys 7 (Score:4, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:44AM (#6733547)
    See Sys 7 1979 location [tuhs.org]
    • Re:Location in Sys 7 (Score:5, Interesting)

      by albalbo (33890) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:53AM (#6733699) Homepage

      Both snippets relate to the first function in that file - malloc(). It's a simple malloc implementation.

      The second Heise picture is the body of the function, pretty much. There is now an SMP spinlock in there, and what appears to be some assertion on the size of the memory area (some kind of bigmem check?). Also, the for loop is initialised with a function, which is probably also something memory related, again possibly bigmem related.

      So, it relates to the areas SCO said it did. I doubt very much they can claim the code was copied from SysV wholesale. I would be surprised they could even claim that the three changed lines from the ancient Unix are not obvious - e.g., for it to work in SMP you basically need a lock. Although, it would be surprising for the locking mechanism to be identical - so they perhaps have some point here. But, the majority of the function cannot be claimed as copied, surely....

  • by stere0 (526823) <slashdotmail@NOSpaM.stereo.lu> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:45AM (#6733553) Homepage
    The Gentoo People [gentoo.org] and an AC the previous SCO thread [slashdot.org] beat me to it. There's a very interesting discussion over at LWN [lwn.net], in which Bruce Perens points out that Caldera has put that code under a free licence.
  • by mgessner (46612) * <`mgssnr' `at' `gmail.com'> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:45AM (#6733556) Journal
    Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?

    If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?
    • Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Thud457 (234763) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:50AM (#6733657) Homepage Journal
      Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?

      If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?

      This is exactly why they want you to sign your life away by signing a NDA before they will show you the code. They want to use this to bludgeon people into settling BEFORE IT GETS TO COURT . They are not interested in legitmately rectifying the situation.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:11PM (#6734019)
      Chewbacca uses an x86 32 bit computer. Chewbacca buys software license for a ia64 computer.

      IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
  • This.. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nick Fury (624480) <massengillm@ncssm.edu> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:46AM (#6733575)
    Still doesn't prove shit for SCO's claim other than digital cameras are getting smaller and easier to hide.
  • by Gaetano (142855) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:47AM (#6733590)
    This from the kernel mailing list [theaimsgroup.com]

    http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf [tuhs.org]

    January 23, 2002 Dear UNIX? enthusiasts, Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems: 32-bit 32V UNIX 16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

    -Tupshin

  • by *igor* (34968) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:47AM (#6733601)

    if (size == 0)
    return) ((ulong_t NULL);

    What is this, amateur night?
  • babelfished (Score:5, Informative)

    by Empiric (675968) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:48AM (#6733603) Homepage
    Here's a semi-readable, slightly-cleaned babelfish translation... it'd be great if somebody who can actually speak German could post a better one...


    The fight for the legal standard of Linux develops more and more to the show piece: Still two weeks ago ago on the Linuxworld had itself boss Mathew Szulik as the rescuer of the free world explained and all Linux trailers to the fight against the chains of the commercial software industry called. Now geriert itself its opponent Darl McBride of SCO still more martialischer: a James bond in the struggle with dark power -- the open SOURCE movement.

    SCO executive committee Darl McBride used two full hours for the prelude of the SCO forum, in order to represent the legal position of its company. With pictures and title music from James bond films the manager sought itself to join in the faithful ones of the former cult company from Santa Cruz for fight for property. The SCO Group leads a law case with IBM because of alleged copyright infringements and abuse of SCOs protected Unix program code in Linux. Star lawyer David Boies, which attained celebrity as a complaint representative of the US government against Microsoft, represents SCO IBM over 1500 Linux Grossanwender printing reminder approximately from SCO kept and was requested to pay royalties.

    Supported of its vice-president Chris Sontag showed McBride of examples from the code of the Linux Kernelversionen 2,5 and 2,6, which are to prove that program sections were transferred invariably from Unix -- an example shown by SCO to code comments in the picture left ( version increased ). Identical typing errors in the comments as well as unusual ways of writing would have left traitorous traces, to stated Sontag. Around this to prove McBride a team for pattern recognition had angeheuert, around ten thousands from program lines to through forests. The few code sequences shown apart from the comments were made to a large extent illegible, alleged, in order to protect SCOs author-genuine. They would stand however representing for thousands of program lines, for stressed Sontag. From several persons or groups at different times parts were transferred illegaly to Linux and distributed sourceopen at users and developers. At the contentious software it goes besides not around simple or trivial functions, but important operating system characteristics for the fitness with fastidious tasks and in extremely safe operating conditions into enterprises. In addition belong the multi-processor mechanisms NUMA and SMP, which were to be had under Unix Lizenzbedingungen only with expensive hardware in the value of ten thousands from US dollar to.

    Approximately 700 crucial code lines of the SMP technology are to have moved from Unix into the Linux releases 2,4 and 2,5. Altogether SCOs testers over 800.000 lines would have found duplicated program text -- an example of SCO shows the picture right ( version increased ). Attorney Mark Heise from the Boies boies-Kanzlei came along for the support of the SCO managers on the podium in read Vegas. It made clear that a GPL license did not protect against the requirement for authority of SCO. The Unix license, which bought SCO 1994 of the original Unix inventor RK & T, guarantees SCO property at Unix system v copyrights and all RKS & t-software and Sublizenzrechten. Originally the license agreement defined by RK & t-lawyers, which changed over by purchase to SCO, is clear in addition regarding the range and consequence of the license, stressed the lawyer. Afterwards the license grants the "right the software products to the licensee (for example IBM) to own business purposes to use internally", quoted Marks of Heise from the contract text. "modifications and derivatives of results are to be treated like the original software products", continue to be called it there. And they "cannot become used for others or by others".

    "Now we know ourselves finally, like Linux in completely short time of a hobby operating system to the platform for ente
    • 00-nought (Score:5, Funny)

      by Chagatai (524580) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:59AM (#6733835) Homepage
      I love this quote:

      With pictures and title music from James bond films the manager sought itself to join in the faithful ones of the former cult company from Santa Cruz for fight for property.

      Sorry, but Darl is no 007. If I had to cast him in a James Bond movie he would be something like "henchman #7 who gets shot by his own soldiers and falls off a banister to hang by his neck in front of James Bond." If he were even able to be given a name such as "Odd Job" or "Goldfinger", Darl's name would be "Ass Hat" or something like that.

  • by burgburgburg (574866) <splisken06@emai3.14l.com minus pi> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:50AM (#6733649)
    The fact that SCO refused to show code fragments that they claim are stolen, but felt free to display this purloined comment indicates the root of the problem:

    The System V comments have been stolen!!!

    Obviously no actual code has been used. But the comments, the key component of the intellectual property that makes up SCO, has been lifted near verbatim and ruthlessly incorporated into Linux. Oh, the injustice.

    When will it end?!?

  • To sum up: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Vexalith (684137) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:51AM (#6733664)
    To sum up, this code is in 2.4.x but not 2.5.x, was also present in BSD which means its open source based on the case the BSD creators went through in the early 1990s. Have SCO really so poorly researched these examples that this is the best they can show us?
  • by raindog2 (91790) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:52AM (#6733693) Homepage
    Here's the earliest implementation people have found so far, from 1979 (before SCO was "born"):

    http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html [tuhs.org]

    And here's where it was part of BSD 2.11 circa 1992:

    http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11 BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c [pdp11.org.ru]

    Oh, how I hope the mainstream tech press "gets" this.
  • Code from BSD? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:53AM (#6733697)
    I think that it looks like SCO's snippet, doesn't even belong to them, compare following which is: Copyright 1986 Regents of the University of California [pdp11.org.ru]

    That's BSD
  • by yeremein (678037) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:53AM (#6733706)
    Here [google.com] or Here [tinyurl.com]
  • by linuxislandsucks (461335) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:54AM (#6733726) Homepage Journal
    this is code that was contributed by Caldera employees and thus released under full SCO Group knowledge to Linux..

    So where is the magical proof that McBride keeps claiming that he has?

    I smell a fraud lawsuit against McBride on the basis of both Federal and State BlueSky Laws on the basis on making false factual public statements that investors relied upon to buy SCO Group stock..

    and Boise should know better than to perpuate false information about the laws and regs on software copyrights!
  • by The Lynxpro (657990) <lynxproNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:55AM (#6733742)
    My reaction is "so what." I wouldn't be surprised if you saw those same lines in NT. They probably originated in BSD as so many others have stated and will continue to state. If it is true Caldera sent an employee or two to IBM to help *beef up* Linux, then that would be a valid explanation as to why the code is the same. SCO is Caldera and they cannot deny that no matter how many times they change their corporate name. They put the lines in there and they distributed the offending versions of Linux under the GPL. Just because they are no where as successful as RedHat or SuSE gives them no rights to try to weasel out of it now... When will SuSE, Xandros, and Lindows join the RedHat lawsuit against *Caldera*???
  • by pstreck (558593) * on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:55AM (#6733745)
    /* $Id: ate_utils.c,v 1.1 2002/02/28 17:31:25 marcelo Exp $ * * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive * for more details. * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved. */ Copyright SGI.... hrrmm, I wonder what their contract says about derrivitive(i cant spell) works.
  • Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Helmholtz (2715) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @11:56AM (#6733760) Homepage
    Of course isn't descrabling the greek phrase a direct violation of the DMCA?

    CRAP! Now SCO can sue all the people that have printed, spoken, or otherwise communicated the obscured text!

    This whole thing is really getting ridiculous. I wonder how long it will be before the laws that support this kind of nonsense are seriously reworked and/or simply gotten rid of.
  • by m.dillon (147925) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:02PM (#6733880) Homepage
    From the linux-kernel list, the code was apparently donated by Caldara under the BSD license in 2002. Here are the references.

    Start of Thread [iu.edu]

    Conclusion [iu.edu]

  • by echo (735) <.gro.tekcubeht. .ta. .ohce.> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:02PM (#6733881) Homepage Journal
    Check this out [bkbits.net]

    patch@hp.com according to bitkeeper.

    Also, this has been removed in 2.6, mainly because it was a stupid implementation.
    • by Platinum Dragon (34829) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:49PM (#6734493) Journal
      So let me get this straight.

      A patch was submitted by someone from HP, containing a Silicon Graphics, Inc. copyright line, along with at least one chunk of code that is nearly identical to several early BSDs, as part of an SMP implementation, that SCO is claiming IBM donated to the Linux kernel in violation of a contract?

      What. The. Fuck. I don't even want to try and figure out the web of licences, contracts, and original sources for this code. Based on other comments, it looks like a basic (crappy) implementation of memory allocation. On top of it all, whoever at SCO prepared the PowerPoint presentation managed to mistype the supposed SysV code.

      Several scattered thoughts come to mind, among them "chutzpah", "pump and dump", and "someone's going to jail when this is all over."
      • by Angst Badger (8636) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @02:46PM (#6735814)
        I don't even want to try and figure out the web of licences, contracts, and original sources for this code.

        Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the impression that it's corporate coders working for proprietary software companies whose coding practices are sloppy and reckless about intellectual property, and not us long-haired hippie commie free software freaks?
    • by 6079_Smith (676623) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @01:13PM (#6734791)
      So to sum it up: SCO sued IBM, because HP comitted a patch copied by SGI from an old Bell Labs Unix, which was released under a BSD license by SCO. Seems like Sun are the only ones not involved. That's probably the reason they bought one of those Unix licenses from SCO, just to be part of the picture.
  • The actual source code in question isn't of primary importance at this point since the main SCO complaint is against IBM, and IBM's source code is in the Linux source tree because they donated it. Its public knowledge that IBM donated code to Linux, and SCO is just showing the code to selected neophytes for shock value. "SCO showed me source code from Linux and System V, and THEY WERE THE SAME! I'm shocked! IBM must be guilty".

    SCO may eventually make other claims that all of Linux is their stolen property, but for the time being the focus should be on IBM, and in that case looking at the code does nothing but provide FUD fodder for clueless news outlets. The headlines will read "Industry analyst says lines of code are the same, SCO up 3 points".

    The real issue here is this is a licensing dispute between two software companies, and it says nothing of value about the open source development process or Linux. Its in SCO's interest to bring these broader issues into the picture in order to put pressure on IBM to settle, but DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!

    • by Ian Lance Taylor (18693) <ian@airs.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:54PM (#6734556) Homepage
      Don't forget SCO's Linux licensing program.

      The code which SCO showed here does not appear to have been donated by IBM. In the Linux kernel it was marked with an SGI copyright.

      The fact that IBM donated code to Linux may (or may not) give SCO a case against IBM. However, since that code was not written by SCO, for SCO to claim that that code gives SCO any IP rights to Linux is very tenuous.

      SCO is showing this example of direct copying from Unix to Linux to show that SCO has IP rights to Linux, thus justifying their Linux licensing program.

      Mind you, since this code has already been removed from the Linux kernel, it looks like it's not going to help the Linux licensing program much. Of course, SCO claims to have other examples. They're probably worth about as much as this one.
  • by EmagGeek (574360) <gterich @ a o l.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:14PM (#6734059) Journal
    It is so great that everyone here in the /. community is so on top of this. It's great that so many of you know where to look to find the true origins of the "stolen" code, that by today's evidence, is obviously not stolen.

    However, this is not yet the time to celebrate. SCO is claiming 829,000 lines of code was "stolen" from SMP code alone. Of course this is probably ridiculous, but a screen shot of some comments from the late 70's only shows that those particular comments were not stolen.

    There is still a lot of work to do. Mr. McBride is creating so much work because for each claim of copyright, the onus is going to be on the linux community to find the origins and prove the allegations wrong. SCO is only going to present SCO code that was supposedly 'written' before the linux code. Their entire offense is going to rest solely upon the fact that they have a plaintext file with an earlier date than the linux kernel's corresponding code file.

    The work is going to be on our backs to locate even older code that SCO's predecessors used to write SYS V. I would raise the bar as well and go so far as to attempt to show that SCO's code was itself misappropriated.

    We are just now starting to see how much work we have in front of us, and believe me, that mountain of work is only going to get larger. But, as with the development of linux itself, there are millions of developers across the globe that will be able to find evidence to refute each and every one of their fraudulent and baseless claims.

    • by pjrc (134994) <paul@pjrc.com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @02:25PM (#6735577) Homepage Journal
      It is so great that everyone here in the /. community is so on top of this.

      Some time ago, moderator points were scarce and usually fewer than 10 coments would end up at +5. Today, this popular article has already more than 50 comments moderated to +5, and quite frankly most of them are hardly "on top of this". Yes, a few are, but most are not.

      One mentions checking the linux CVS repository history, yet the Linus has never used CVS and only revently started using bitkeeper.

      Many posts stupidly suggest that this questionable code could have originated within linux and been copied by SCO. How stupid is that, when the code is from 1979 or possibly earlier?

      Many others point out that because it appeared in Berkeley BSD, it must be legit... yet the version of BSD it appears in was long before the settlement with AT&T/USL, and before the effort to rewrite all of AT&T's code.

      Now a few +5 posts (a small minority) insightfully point out that this code is within the two ancient unix sources that Caldera released with a BSD-style license within the last two years.

      But denying that the ancient unix is not the source, or incredibly that it could have originated in linux between 1991 to present and been copied by SCO into the code from teh 70's and 80's is just downright stupid.

      A moderation system where several such comments end up at "+5 insightful", thereby dilluting attention from the minority of +5 comments with good informtation is a vbery broken moderation system indeed.

      Hardly what I'd call "everyone here in the /. community is so on top of this". Replace "everyone" with "a few needles in the haystack of bogus +5 comments" and I'd agree.

      • by fishbowl (7759) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @04:00PM (#6736603)
        "A moderation system where several such comments end up at "+5 insightful", thereby dilluting attention from the minority of +5 comments with good informtation is a vbery broken moderation system indeed. "

        I'd change it to not cap the limit of moderation totals, certainly way higher than just "+5"...
        And then for the filter, I'd provide a logrithmic scale to filter the messages.
  • by Jerry (6400) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:15PM (#6734084)
    http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11 BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c

    /*
    * Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
    * All rights reserved. The Berkeley software License Agreement
    * specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution.
    *
    * @(#)subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92
    */

    #include "param.h"
    #include "systm.h"
    #include "map.h"
    #include "vm.h" /*
    * Resource map handling routines.
    *
    * A resource map is an array of structures each of which describes a
    * segment of the address space of an available resource. The segments
    * are described by their base address and length, and sorted in address
    * order. Each resource map has a fixed maximum number of segments
    * allowed. Resources are allocated by taking part or all of one of the
    * segments of the map.
    *
    * Returning of resources will require another segment if the returned
    * resources are not adjacent in the address space to an existing segment.
    * If the return of a segment would require a slot which is not available,
    * then one of the resource map segments is discarded after a warning is
    * printed.
    *
    * Returning of resources may also cause the map to collapse by coalescing
    * two existing segments and the returned space into a single segment. In
    * this case the resource map is made smaller by copying together to fill
    * the resultant gap.
    *
    * N.B.: the current implementation uses a dense array and does not admit
    * the value ``0'' as a legal address or size, since that is used as a
    * delimiter.
    */
    /*
    * Allocate 'size' units from the given map. Return the base of the
    * allocated space. In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
    * list is terminated by a 0 size.
    *
    * Algorithm is first-fit.
    */

    memaddr
    malloc(mp, size)
    struct map *mp;
    register size_t size;
    {
    register struct mapent *bp, *ep;
    memaddr addr;
    int retry;

    if (!size)
    panic("malloc: size = 0"); /*
    * Search for a piece of the resource map which has enough
    * free space to accomodate the request.
    */
    retry = 0;

    .....


    Which means that SCO is using BSD/PDP11 code. This is also part of the code they called "Ancient Unix", because it was old and obsolete, and posted it on the web. Initially they wanted a $100 "license" fee to download the code, but the number of takers were so few that SCO opened it up to free access. We're they hoping someone might copy some of the code into the Linux kernel? Some might suggest that this was their plan all along, but a lot of the Sys V code would require a "glue", as former SCO employee Christoph Hellwig put it, in order for the SCO code to work in Linux. That kludge would not pass lkrnl checking.

  • by rump_carrot (644292) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:25PM (#6734199)
    Call me paranoid....but this might be a trick by SCO to probe the defences of the Open Source community, by having us do their historical code research for them, gratis.

    What do I mean? An example.

    I used to be a magician - a classic trick in the magicians arsenal is called the "sucker trick"

    In the sucker trick one does a seemingly stupid trick. As people start to think they have figured it out, the bright (and loud) ones start yelling how they think it works. Then, PRESTO, the real trick is revealed!

    IF you do it right, people are amazed and impressed, and more importantly, you have identified the hecklers in the audience, who often remain quiet the rest of the show out of embarrassment.

    I know this sounds paranoid, and you might think ol' Darl is no magician, but he has conjured ~ 20X increase in SCO "worth", from an essentially worthless company.

    Just a thought.
  • OT, but SCO related (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OMG (669971) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:31PM (#6734270)
    http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030819/latu060_1.html
    reads:

    The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system, today announced the appointment of Gregory Blepp as vice president of SCOsource. Blepp will report to Chris Sontag, the senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the division of SCO tasked with protecting and licensing the company's UNIX intellectual property.

    Blepp, a former VP of International Business at SuSE, brings to SCO a wealth of experience in marketing and business management from time at Network Associates and Computer Associates. Blepp's appointment is taking place at SCOForum in Las Vegas this week where he is being introduced to SCO partners and resellers.

    "We're pleased to have Gregory Blepp join SCO to assist in our efforts around SCOsource in Europe," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and GM, SCOsource. "We look forward to using Blepp's talents and expertise in assisting the company to properly license SCO's valuable UNIX intellectual property."


    Is this world full of insane people ?
  • by rkww (675767) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:31PM (#6734277)
    The nsys kernel version of malloc [udel.edu] has exactly the same implementation, albeit without any comments.

    Dennis Ritchie has written [udel.edu] So far as I can determine, this is the earliest version of Unix that currently exists in machine-readable form. ... The dates on the transcription are hard to interpret correctly; if my program that interprets the image are correct, the files were last touched on 22 Jan, 1973. ...

    • by chefmonkey (140671) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @02:41PM (#6735761)
      Giving up my mod points to post on this thread...

      As much as I'd love to see SCO go down in flames over this issue, I think you're missing some important facts.

      So, the code is old. That doesn't mean it's public domain. And who wrote it? According to what you cite, Dennis Ritchie. In 1973, Ritchie was working for Bell Labs, developing their Unix system. Yes, Bell Labs, part of AT&T. You know, SysV and all that? The copyrights to that code have subsequently been sold, and are currently held by... The SCO Group.

      Whoops.

      Prior to January 1, 1978, the copyright term was 28 years. At the end of the 28th year, the copyright period could be renewed for an optional period of 28 years, later extended to 47 years.

      1973 is 30 years ago. If the copyright on the code has been properly maintained, that would mean that SCO owns it potentially until January of 2048. If not, the code passed into the public domain back in 2001.

      Yes, perhaps it's been infringed on in other places (n.b., however, that Irix and BSD through 4.4 were licencees of the original code, and the the PDP-11 was Dennis Ritchie's development platform at Bell Labs), but this is copyright, not trademark law. Other infringements don't trigger a free-for-all.

      This one will take some sorting out. It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as SCO is pretending it to be, but it's hardly clear that we (the Linux crowd) are as correct as we believe, either.

      • by Darth (29071) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @05:30PM (#6737873) Homepage
        well, if the code has remained unchanged since January of '73, then the same code is in versions 2, 3 and 4 of Unix.

        AT&T gave the sources to Unix away free to academic institutions sometime around 1974.
        Additionally, Caldera made some of the sources available under a BSD style license in Jan. 2002.

        There is also the possibility that some of the "infringing" code comes from the from scratch UNIX rewrite by Tanenbaum (minix released in 1986) that was the basis of Linux. (legally, minix can be used as if it were public domain)

        They might hold a copyright on that code. However, prior owners of that copyright gave that code away for free.

        They are going to have a lot of fun trying to show that really ancient pieces of code like that didnt come from sources that were freely released by prior owners of the code.
  • Slashdot is working (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mnmn (145599) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:39PM (#6734382) Homepage
    Slashdot is an online machinery that is geared towards the benefit of the free software community. Throw some challenges to the free software community at slashdot and watch thousands of brilliant minds load-balanced working like a huge beowulf processing information online (a bit like SETI) to achieve the commonly understood goal; in this case to defend Linux.

    If you want millions of man-hours with full motivation and some of the best skill to work for you for free, go to slashdot provided the task is enormously beneficial to the free software community. No corporation can spend any amount of capital or hire any number of people to match the productivity of geeks running on fuel that is pizza and beer to change the world.

    Bravo.
  • by Raster Burn (213891) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:45PM (#6734441)
    If these functions were implemented in Perl, they would be guaranteed to look different than the System V!
  • I'm pissed (Score:5, Funny)

    by lspd (566786) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:45PM (#6734450) Homepage Journal
    Come on now. I took the idea of comparing sources using MD5 hashes that Michael Chaney and Rick Bradley came up with, tweaked it a bit, compared Sys3 with 2.4.21 and posted this match on /. a while back.

    When it was posted on the Linux Kernel Mailing List they gave me a little shout-out. If when SCO says "a team of code comparison experts" they actually mean some guy on slashdot...well...they could at least give me a mention. Not like I really care about getting a proper "* Thanks LSPD" in the SCO Legal Case Changelog, but give me a break.

    Bastards...
  • You see! (Score:5, Funny)

    by nedwidek (98930) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:51PM (#6734508)
    You see! This is why they didn't show their evidence! You all have gone and poked holes in it. Shame on you, you're going to be responsible for the death of a corporation!

    Important note for the sarcasm impared: yes, the above is sarcasm.
  • And so they think that everyone else is too. It's the classic syndrome called "projection".

    The SystemV code shown is mroe recent than the Linux code, with added comments. No-one, ever, removes comments when copying code.

    All their presentation shows is that the two functions have a shared pedigree, and this code is so old that the pedigree can be found in at least two books, and multiple versions of Unix.

    SCO are lying, thieving, scurilous rumour mongers and sadly getting much too much attention.

    Which makes me think: could the whole thing be simply intended to distract our attention from something else happening...? It is a classic ploy.
  • by telstar (236404) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @12:56PM (#6734572)
    After all ... there can't be more than one person that actually comments their code, can there?
  • by kaip (92449) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @01:30PM (#6735002) Homepage

    Bruce Perens has written an analysis of the code that SCO claims was wrongfully copied into Linux: http://perens.com/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html [perens.com]

  • by tstoneman (589372) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @03:30PM (#6736272)
    Let's not get confused with what is going on in the SCO situation. I had my IP lawyer friend explain to me exactly what is going on. I am not a lawyer, so take everything that I have written down with a grain of salt, and I may even have the issues confused, so don't sue me.

    1) SCO is suing IBM for trade secret misappropriation. They are saying that IBM gave away some secrets and it caused them damages. This doesn't really affect Linux.
    2) Copyright infringement. They say that Linux contains millions of lines of code that infringes SCO's copyright. This is the reason why they are charging Linux users a license. You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright. Code comments *are* copyright-able and can be considered trade secrets (but you cannot do both). You cannot patent code comments, but having infringing code copied into the Linux code could be considered copyright infringement. Although if it were only code comments, the claims for damages may be very negligible.

    In order for anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to win, they need to either:
    1) prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns. Right now, there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise. I think all the comparisons to UNIX 7 code, if it really was public domain that preceded SCO's claims, could be a good strategy.

    2) prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement. Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious, since they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.

    To all Washington DC Slashdotters:

    SCO must have disclosed code to the Library of Congress when it registered their copyright to the UNIX code. Presumably they registered infringed code otherwise it would be a pointless on their part. Something must be available there, and it will give a better clue as to what code they say has been infringed. Maybe someone can actually go down there, do some research and publish or point out what that code actually is.
    • by frkiii (691845) on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @03:46PM (#6736445)
      Copyright infringement is NOT part of their suit against IBM. The only place where SCO has alledged this, is in their statements to the press, in the form of "IP", etc. To the best of my knowledge, they have not filed a copyright infringement case against ANYONE. I have read SCO's original and amended suits against IBM, it is simply a contractual suit, generally breach of contract, and disclosing "trade secrets". Which is really funny, because they specifically name NUMA, JFS and SMP in their lawsuit, refering to what IBM contributed to Linux. And that is funny, because SCO does not own or "control" that software at all. Most if it is copyrighted by IBM or by company that IBM bought (Sequent) or others, but NOT SCO. SCO's entire case, based on their filed amended complaint, hinges on the court ruling that NUMA, JFS and SMP are "derivative workds" of Unix System V. But that is very highly unlikely, in my opinion. Regards, Fredrick
  • by dh003i (203189) <dh003i.gmail@com> on Tuesday August 19, 2003 @04:59PM (#6737378) Homepage Journal
    SCO: You tresspassed on my property

    YOU: Huh? What? Where's your property?

    SCO: I can't tell you that, because telling you that would allow you to tresspass on my property again.

    YOU: Huh? How the fuck am I supposed to avoid tresspassing on your property if you won't tell me where it is.

    SCO: That's your problem.

    YOU: Can you show me some evidence that proves I tresspassed on your property?

    SCO: No, that would violate our property rights!

    YOU: Can you show me how not to tresspass on your property?

    SCO: No, that would violate our property rights. Now, we're going to sue you for tresspassing!

"The vast majority of successful major crimes against property are perpetrated by individuals abusing positions of trust." -- Lawrence Dalzell

Working...