"Stolen" SCO Linux Code Snippets Leaked 1180
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.
I can decipher it! (Score:0, Insightful)
(Please note that I can not, in fact, read Greek. It was more just to point out that it's not, you know, Symbol font.)
Strange...... (Score:2, Insightful)
So this is what they're pitching a fit about? (Score:2, Insightful)
second one does look too close if it is there (Score:2, Insightful)
Having said that I doubt this will affect the future of linux. IBM has too much to lose they'll just crush SCO if they have to.
Re:I can decipher it! (Score:2, Insightful)
Yes, dimwit, it is the Symbol font. The Symbol font consists primarily of Greek letters.
Exactly! (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Is this slander or is it libel? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Stolen Comments!!! (Score:1, Insightful)
ah people time to wave bye bye to SCO Group (Score:5, Insightful)
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!
still proves nothing... (Score:5, Insightful)
arch/ia64? SCO doesn't run on 64 arch? (Score:2, Insightful)
And I thought SCO doesn't run on any 64 but arch? Can anyone explain how we copied code for 64 bit arch processors from SCO sources, of all places?
OK, they are saying they own the copyright of it because it's in SYSV code which they didn't write, but by some contract own anyway. Is that it?
Re:To sum up: (Score:2, Insightful)
Mind backing that up w/ a little evidence? It could very well be the key to putting this whole fsck'n mess behind us...
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
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:Stolen Comments!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Programming languages (C in this case) are fairly orthoganal. It's easy for two people to both come up with the exact same solution in complete isolation, there's often only one "right" way to accomplish something.
But for two to describe the exact same thing in english and come up with word-for-word the exact same result is fishy indeed. Imagine two english students handing in the same essay, word-for-word compared to two comp students handing in the same code with a few changed variable names.
If comments were cut and pasted, I'm assuming code was too. The issue really is who owns the source in the first place, not whether the same code is in both places.
Re:Code from BSD? (Score:1, Insightful)
Why remove a line of comment (Score:2, Insightful)
WHERE IS THE PRESS?!!! (Score:3, Insightful)
Let's try and get some of the mainstream press to look into this and put SCO's feet to the fire. I'm so tired of this bullshit.
It is a wonderful day, but don't celebrate yet (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or maybe both came from a third party. Especially considering that the Linux version of the code is marked "Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc."
Re:oh no! (Score:2, Insightful)
I haven't read the code yet, but that strikes me as suspicious. printf is implemented in libc, against which Linux is not linked (nor is any other kernel). Linux has a printk function which has a similar purpose.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, that has yet to be proven. Even if the screen shots provided are correct, it has yet to be determined who put those comments in each code and when. SCO could have just as easily inserted them in their code at the time because it was easier than developing it themselves. Or perhaps they inserted the code intentionally so that later they could say "See? It's the same." Or maybe SCO contributed the code to their Linux distribution? Or, yes, perhaps someone took it from SCO inappropriately and inserted it in Linux--in which case THAT PERSON (or company) should be SCO's target, not Linux and Linux users worldwide.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements.
And I'm sure that as soon as SCO acts reasonably and friggin' tells the world what sections of code they have a beef with, that's exactly what will happen regardless of whether SCO's claims are valid or not.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Insightful)
Stolen? Stolen from where? Showing two identical blocks of code in two different OSes proves nothing. SCO has to prove that it is the rightful copyright holder of that code *and* it has to somehow weasel out of its release of that code in the Linux kernel under the GPL. If that code originated in Linux first, SCO is out of luck. If that code originated from a third party and was taked by both Linux and SCO, SCO is out of luck.
But once we see what code is in question, finding the original, rightful copyright holder is the easy part. And if the holder isn't SCO, SCO is out of luck. That's why SCO has been so afraid to show it in public.
...assuming code was too. (Score:3, Insightful)
a) The Linux comment was copied from the System V code
b) That the actual code involved was also copied
c) That the actual code was copied from System V to Linux
This in fact proves nothing.
First, the comments are NOT exactly the same. Parts are, but a good section isn't. There is a whole additional component there in the System V part that SCO decided to mask.
Second, we have no way of knowing from this where these comments originated. We don't know who wrote it, under what license, how it got into either code base and whether it went from one to the other or from some place else into both.
Third, We've no proof that the code was copied from anywhere to anywhere. It wasn't shown and I'm not willing to assume anything when it comes to SCO.
Fourth, even if the code itself was copied, we again have no proof as to the path of it's dissemination.
This is a lot of smoke and mirrors. Pay attention to the man behind the curtain.
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
That would explain the "register" variables. That keyword has been ignored by compilers for a long time, and so when you see it in code, it is almost always old code, copied from somewhere.
"Leaked"? Careful! This might be a set-up by SCO!! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Insightful)
Not exactly!
It may show that there is identical code in Linux and Unix, but that in no way "proves" the code was stolen from the latter! The code may have come from BSD, it may have been stolen from Linux and copied into Unix, some of it may be OEM code that was released by a hardware vendor to many platforms with the same comments but slightly different actual code. There is no way possible to determine any of this with what pathetically little has been shown.
Which returns to the point that most here have. If this the all they can show - they've got crap for a case! If they have some "smoking gun" type example, then show it so the matter can be resolved. Using "smoke and mirrors" to extort money from Linux users is NOT an acceptable tactic.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
The courts will almost always grant injunctive relief for the duration of the trial if there is any reasonable evidence that there is any merit to the claim. For an example, look at Microsoft's having to change every disk they produced (not just OS disks but even training manuals) that included the MS Java Runtime. That injunction was ordered at the BEGINNING of the Sun v Microsoft case before evidence was even presented.
SCO Has Already Won (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:2, Insightful)
I'll not deny that there may be "stolen code" in Linux. But the fact is, at this point we simply don't know. And neither do you.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
If the person who snapped this photo was under NDA, and SCO can prove it, they might not lose protection.
However, I don't think they have that protection to being with. The Unix source code has been seen by generations of students. Even under NDA, if you have intimate access to the Unix source code you're going to learn things by reading it, things that might unintentionally make it into your future projects. You can't have trade secrets that are public knowledge. (Yes, this does contradict what I said earlier.)
In other words, if they'd kept the source as close to secret as possible, they might still have protection, if you couldn't figure out the source by disassembling it (which is legal) and if it actually did anything all that amazing. Being that they've shown so many people over the years, even under NDA, they can't legitimately claim they've been trying to keep it a secret.
Trade secrets are a weird bit of law.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
SCO can't possibly order an injunction against the entire kernel because most (all?) of it isn't copyrighted by them. SCO could probably order an injunction against certain bits of contested code, but it would have to tell what they are in order for that to be granted. And besides, stopping the shipment of a Linux kernel would hurt SCO's FUD-based revenue stream and injure their long-term prospects even more.
Re:I'm not the only one who noticed this... (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, let's think outside of your trolling existance, shall we? It could've very well been a "first phase" implimentation. That is, it was needed, somone donated it, and it worked. It didn't work well, and it sucked up memory, but everything else either didn't work, broke something, or nobody else offered a solution at the time. So, it was implimented.
Upon implimentation, somone, down the road, said to themselves "hey man, what the fuck is going on here? WHY are we allocating resources that never get used?" and decided to mention it to the public, as well as offer a solution.
In fact, that's exactly how the Linux kernel has grown. There have been several implimentations of various things. They start off as "just working," and move on up to better implimentations as people notice different things.
Also, the function in question is a utility - not many people pay attention to them. Not only that, but it was not used much outside of a few functions. Considering that kernel hackers like to work on the sexiest things, as well as the fact that there are over a million lines of code in the kernel, would lead to this little bit being overlooked quite easily.
Then, as I said, one day, someone, somewhere, came along and said "you know what, Linus? there's a better way to do this ..."
And, the cycle continues.
--LordKaT
SCO are lazy, stupid bastards (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hardly "a matter between SCO and IBM only"
Of course, there's always the possibility that there's absolutely no code in Linux that isn't IP Clean. But that's pretty small odds if you think about it in any reasonable way.
Re:Why is everyone fixated on the kernel source co (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:2, Insightful)
SCO already released the code under the GPL when they distributed Linux. It may not be fair (assuming that there actually is infringing code -- thus far, SCO hasn't inspired a lot of confidence), but the GPL *is* legit, and a court of law will assume SCO should have been competent enough not to release "their own code" under such a license.
Back to square one, huh?
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
Beyond that, why waste time trying to "black-box" the code when most, if not all, of these claims seem unfounded. I take it you've been reading the responses you've gotten so far regarding the BSD nature of the comments, right?
Courtroom Shenanigans (Score:3, Insightful)
Others have shown that for these specific sections of code the history can be easily traced. However, imagine yourself in a trial, with sophist lawyers explaining to a technically ignorant judge and/or jury that the code is copied, IP rights were violated, and here's the proof.
Without the proper technical knowledge and resources, the outcome becomes completely dependent on which side can dumb the technical discussion down and argue the best. The facts are often secondary.
Now imagine this whole scenario with IBM being the "bad guy" and SCO being the "good guy", as seen from the /. perspective. Most of you would be cheering on SCO in this exact same situation, simply because your preconceived bias was reversed.
Take this as a lesson: try to objectively look at the facts (or be aware that you don't have the facts) before jumping to the conclusion that someone's guilty.
Re:ASSEMBLER code? (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know what the heck they were thinking when they did that, it was a pretty dumb way to try and hide something that doesn't seem to be very important anyway. As another poster suggested, it may have just been a setup to the kind of dumb-joke jocks-turned-managers always love... 'heheh all this geeky computer code is greek to me' or something.
But the cool thing is this example turns out to be exactly what we've been saying from the beginning it likely was - stuff that does indeed appear in the source tree Caldera bought along with the name of SCO, but NOT stuff that they have an unencumbered copyright on. This comment dates at least to 76, it appears in print in a K&R book, in the Lions book, and in a number of different BSD licensed Unices. Not to mention that it's a comment not code, so it wouldn't matter even if that weren't true.
Re:Very interesting news article (Score:3, Insightful)
The bastards.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
How about this... You don't write 890k lines of code all of which is a trade secret. C is a pretty wordy language compared to Perl, so some of that is going to be linked list implementation, or array manipulation. You know, code that while it might be part of something big, isn't secret. Just as Nuclear reactors are big and scary and contain secret parts, they've also got $.50 washers on the taps in the bathroom. Take a section of that mundane code and show us how Linux contains an exact copy of it. Trade secret protection only applies to things which could reasonable be thought of as not being known by other professionals in the industry, so a linked list handler would never get that protection unless it was special in some way. (And nobody, to my knowledge, has ever commented on how the Linux kernel has exceptional linked list handling...)
Show us some code. That they are unwilling to find at least one ten-line chunk of code in the 890,000 they claim is stolen, that doesn't contain what they think of as the crown jewels either means their code is absolutely stunning, or that they're full of shit.
Personally, I'm voting they're full of shit. If they had a case, they'd present at least bits of it. It'd up their stock price and who knows, maybe even force IBM to settle if their (IBM's) shareholders didn't think their chances were good. But instead they don't show anything except, under NDA, some similar comments....
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Insightful)
On further investigation, it appears the author is none other than Ken Thompson. See V5/usr/sys/ken/malloc.c.html [tuhs.org] for further details.
Of course, Ken might have lifted this from even earlier sources.
Regards,
--
*Art
Doesn't the NDA violation bother anyone? (Score:0, Insightful)
The code being discussed was photograped and posted in violation of a non-disclosure agreement (one reason I'm NOT discussing its' content). NDAs are one of the foundations of software development and the *.nix community is happily proving it can't be trusted just because it smells blood on the enemy. Any major project is too big to insure 100% review. If we can't be trusted then neither can the code we offer.
I expect and HOPE Heisse is sued for the violation. I HOPE but do not expect the *.nix community will stop shooting itself in the foot and putting flesh on the naysayers FUD.
Get a grip people, you can only lose a trusted reputation once, you never get another chance.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Insightful)
And has SysV or any version of UnixWare / OpenUnix had a NUMA implementation? As far as I know the answer to that question is a big, fat *no*. This seems to be the crux of the SCO headfake: It isnt' SCO code to begin with. Apparently, most (all?) of the code in question is IBM's (by SCO's own admission). If IBM submitted it to the Linux kernel it isn't exactly "stolen" since its hard to steal something that was given to you.
Of course, SCO doesn't frame it in those terms. They *may* have licensing rights over certain code assuming that a) the code in questions is deemed by a court to be derivitive of SysV code and b) the licence IBM and AT&T signed governing the SysV code is binding (in the way SCO claims it is), but the NUMA, RCP, etc. implementations are most certainly not their code.
*If* there actual SysV code found in Linux (that is copyrighted SCO/AT&T/Whoever) in Linux then they still have a bunch of problems. 1st being they seem to have released all the old legacy stuff [slashdot.org] under a BSD license, not to mention the whole AT&T vs. BSD which pretty much kills any of their claims.
To sum up: if its old code chance are SCO has no claim to it due to the AT&T case and the fact they BSD'ed a lot of stuff. If its new code chances are its not SCOs to begin with.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's not quite right either. If GPLed code winds up in a proprietary system, the copyright holder of the GPLed code is entitled to damages no matter what. And, as a remedy, the proprietary owner can either excise the offending, non-licensed GPLed code or make the entire system GPLed to fit in line with the license. The option rests with the owner of the proprietary code.
This is the inverse of what's happening in Linux kernel land. If (and this is a pretty big "if") SCO's proprietary code is in the Linux kernel, either all the kernel copyright holders have to agree to make it proprietary to fit with SCO's license (not likely) or the offending code must be removed from the GPLed system. The latter would be certain, if SCO would bother telling what the *real* offending code is.
Stealing? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Yes, they're lying (Score:3, Insightful)
Free from fee? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Oops missed the best one: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It is a wonderful day, but don't celebrate yet (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Who wants these "enterprise features" anyway? (Score:0, Insightful)
So, quite apart from the fact that SCO's claims have no merit, I think this does point out a pretty fundamental problem with the Linux kernel: it accretes too much stuff. The kernel should be architected in such a way that IBM and SGI could distribute most of their code separately. Furthermore, the Linux mainstream user base should not have to suffer from the increased maintenance hassles (and, as it turns out, increased legal risk) of having millions of lines of code they don't want or need poured into the kernel.
Technically, none of that is a problem with modern programming language and software engineering technologies. Even though some kernel features may require a lot of cross-cutting concerns, we now know how to implement those efficiently and in a principled way. Of course, this won't happen with the Linux kernel, which seems to be solidly stuck in 1960's software engineering technologies.
Don't get me wrong: the Linux kernel is enormously useful and it has lots of drivers. In practice, it is still the most practical kernel around as far as I'm concerned. But these kinds of legal issues, the Bitkeeper mess, as well as the ever more sluggish pace at which new features get incorporated and new kernels get released, are symptoms of a deep problem, and that problem is not going to go away.
Re:Don't forget spelling... (Score:1, Insightful)
My favorite time was when a professor noticed I mispelled a variable name but did it through out the program. Umm, I mispelled it so you'd know if any student copied my code and didn't do their own work. Good idea was his reply.
Re:*scratches head* (Score:5, Insightful)
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?
Re:Doesn't affect SCOX stock price at all (Score:5, Insightful)
Also don't forget the shorts. At some point shorts have to buy the stock back, which can boost the price of the stock. I don't think short covering is a big part of the current holding value of SCOX but it does tend to mitigate the downramp a bit when downramps happen.
In short, SCOX is a highly speculative and volatile stock and any simplistic view of cause and effect in the matter is no more accurate then rolling the dice.
"theft" (Score:3, Insightful)
value of the theft is to be determined but that there was theft is almost
certain...
One of the more irritating tactics in the war of misinformation about IP
being waged by organizations like SCO, the RIAA, etc., is the intentional
misuse of language. Things like trying to make "filesharing" a dirty word
in itself, when in fact there is of course nothing more immoral about
copying files than there is about using a photocopier -- it depends on
what you're copying and what you're doing with it.
Another example is the rampant incorrect use of the terms "theft,"
"stealing," etc., intended to make the alleged perpetrators sound like
sordid, common criminals. Copying a file, no matter what the IP issues
surrounding it, is simply not "theft." From Webster's
dictionary:
Copying data does not deprive the owner of the original of that data. It
has not been removed, and he still has access to it and use of it. There
might be copyright infringement, and there might not be, but it is
not theft.
I'm insulted (Score:3, Insightful)
Real professional students aren't there to get a quick degree that will put them on the fast track to a high paying management position. Real professional students don't look at the graduation requirements; they take classes pretty much on whims. Real professional students study hard, but make the mistake of learning the material rather than the teacher, and can occasionally be found studying chapters that will never be covered in class.
Real professional students would come out of school with a B average, if there was even a remote possibility of extricating them from the campus. Real professional students love to learn for learning's sake, often to the detriment of their careers and social lives. In short, real professional students relate to books the way real geeks relate to computers.
I am An Onerous Coward, and I am a professional student!
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
You can copy da Vinci as much as you'd like; unfortunately for his heirs, he lived in a time before perpetual copyright (or copyright at all?). I guess he was too busy creating stuff than to have time to grease the politicians.
As for SCO, we can assume that what they showed probably is their strongest claim on direct copyright on Linux, since they would put their strongest simple case forward to show copying. We can also assume that there are only 80 to a few hundred lines of code that they are making these weak claims upon. Since Caldera apparently BSD'd their code just last year, the extent of the copyright infringement, if there is any, is that Caldera isn't mentioned in the copyright notice.
But, the judge in the USL v. BSDI case was quite unimpressed with the importance of comments in the code, realizing that they are not important in a functional sense, and unimpressed that only a small smattering of code was the same in BSD which had I don't know how many hundreds of thousands or millions of lines.
Also, as is discussed elsewhere, the sample that they show appears to have a long and tortured past and has been published in text books many times. And trade secrets contained therein have surely been lost, if not the copyright itself.
SCOs hundreds-of-thousands and millions of lines of code theories are not based on direct copying but are based instead on their theory that they own every line of code ever written by any licensor of the original Unix. This theory is even more wobbly than their claims to be the exclusive owners of the tiny fragments of insignificant code that they claim have been directly copied.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:3, Insightful)
So is Windows. Microsoft has copied, cloned, and outright stolen code/programs for years on end. And they're a proprietary software developer (closed source).
Thursdae
SCO released that code under BSD license! (Score:4, Insightful)
SCO has removed the V7 source from their website but the wayback machine [archive.org] has the original release. SCO's case is well and truly baseless.
Yay! Linux wins. World domination is one step closer today.
Re:New caselaw is always possible with neo-con jud (Score:3, Insightful)
Well then should the other 4 justices have not recused themselves as well? Clearly, voting the way they did shows a blatent bias.
Furthermore, they did not vote against state rights. They reaffirmed the Florida Legislature's right and mandate to make the law. The same law the Governor of Florida is sworn to uphold. The Florida Supreme Court ruled such that it went above and beyond the court's mandate as enumerated in the state constitution.
Oh, a legal troll (Score:4, Insightful)
(1) In a copyright suit several years ago, Judge Kimball dismissed the case because the plaintiff had declined to inform the defendant of infringing activity. Similarly, SCO has declined to inform Linus Torvalds of any infringing lines of code in any kernel that Torvalds distributes.
You do know who Judge Kimball is and why his opinions are important in this case, don't you?
(2) In the Napster case, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an action for contributory infringement requires the plaintiff to provide specific notice to the defendant of the infringing work. Point to the specific notice which SCO has provided Linus Torvalds.
(3) For a preliminary injunction, the movant must claim that the actions of the other party are causing ongoing, irreversible harm to the movant. The court then balances this claim with the irreversible harm to the other party that would be caused by granting the injunction.
Question: identify the ongoing actions which IBM, the defendant, is currently taking which are causing irreversible harm to SCO. Remember what "irreversible" means in this context. On the other side, identify the irreversible harm to Linus Torvalds, Red Hat, and other people who are not even parties to the suit, if a court enjoins them from publishing their own work on their own terms.
(4) Bonus question: discuss the doctrine of mitigation of harm. Reconcile this with Darl McBride's public statement that SCO will not identify the specific code in question "because then Red Hat would just take it out".
Re:No difference (Score:4, Insightful)
Nope, your first translation is incorrect. Recall that i-- is a post-decrement operation; the decrement always happens, but the lvalue of i is the value it has before it gets decremented. This means you'll end up with the following:
There's a MOV and TST in there that don't need to be there. Your second translation was more correct:
Schwab
Re:heehee (Score:3, Insightful)
The point of the whole discussion was abstract code theory, not to write tests for specific CPUs and compilers and see what happens.
It's people who can't have an abstract discussion that are killing this business and turning it into an inefficient assembly line. If you don't enjoy thinking and discussing the abstract, programming is the wrong industry for you.
Re:oh no! (Score:3, Insightful)
Very true, although you're not creating something new, but rather a derivative work of the original author's work. If the original author says that you must assign him/her the copyright to the code to re-distribute derivative works and you refuse to, then you have no legal grounds to redistribute the work at all.