"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.
oh no! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
How could the IBM engineers miss it.
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!?
Don't forget spelling... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't forget spelling... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Don't forget spelling... (Score:5, Funny)
Thanks for sharing. : )
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
No.
The accusations made by SCO have been very unclear. The IBM case is about acts by IBM which SCO claims breaches the IBM/AT&T contract. It involves contributing code IBM got by buying Sequent and by participating in Project Monterey. This technology includes RCU, NUMA, SMP and scalability.
Independantly, SCO claims that there are many lines of code copied from Sys V into Linux. They have not yet filed any copyright suit against anyone since they only just got the copyright registrations issued.
Don't confuse the two very different legal issues.
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
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: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.
Well (Score:5, Informative)
Re:oh no! (Score:5, Informative)
That may be the case in many of their claimed 'infringing lines' but not in these two.
The first one shows comments (not code) which match. They're also straightforward descriptions of functionality, date back at least to 1979, and occur in a number of old unix versions which have been commonly read and used for teaching purposes for years, as well as the Lions book.
In this case the comment definately predates Linux so couldn't have been copied from Linux, but the fact it occurs in Linux code is not strong evidence of copyright infringement.
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/usr/src/ sys/sys/malloc.c.htmls ys/malloc.c.htmll oc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Interdata_v6/usr/
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Ausam/sys/ken/mal
The second section of code is copyright of and contributed by SGI, and concerns functionality that SysV doesn't have. It's only relevant on the assumption that SCOs theory that it owns every technology any Unix licensee ever added to their own version of Unix holds water, which means only if the court winds up throwing the entirety of copyright law and precedent out the window and writing new law just for SCOs benefit.
Oops missed the best one: (Score:5, Informative)
http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2. 11BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c
Deliberately not making links so as to hopefully not slashdot more servers than necessary. If you want to see it, cut and paste.
BSD 2.11, for the PDP-11, had it. This is very very ancient Unix.
Even Better! (Score:5, Interesting)
Hate to keep adding posts but it has taken some time to trace this thing. Earliest match yet I found isn't perfect, but in context it's obvious that the exact match in V6 is just the result of some small editing of this earlier version.m alloc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/
This is 30 year old code people. Is it even still covered by copyright at all?
Anyone found earlier versions to check? I wouldn't be surprised if this bit didn't originate even earlier.
Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Informative)
* 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)
*/
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, wait. IHBT haven't I? Blast!
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd put it the other way 'round:
Out of almost a million lines of 'stolen' code, the best example that they can come up with is something in the public domain???
Between that and their laughable argument for why the GPL is invalid, I'm still expecting them to be quashed in court. In fact, my question is whether or not Boyes is going to get censured for filing a 'frivolous and vexatious' case.
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:5, Informative)
First, they will have to show that this code is their property; as others have mentioned, both Linux and SCO Unix contain BSD code - which is perfectly legal to copy.
Second, if the code is stuff from IBM/Sequent, they will need to show that IBM did not in fact have the right to give the code away to Linux. This will not be determined until the lawsuit is settled (and looks unlikely to go in SCO:s favour considering the side agreements that explicitly give IBM permission to do whatever they want with their code).
And don't forget that in the case that IBM loses that suit, it becomes a matter between SCO and IBM only. That code IP is owned by IBM, not SCO, no matter what, and Linux users are free to continue using it. The only one damaged by that would be IBM, as they would be found for breach of contract.
Oh, and the 110/2000/890000/dozens/whatever number sco is flinging around at the moment is pretty much immaterial. They haven't exactly been paragons of accuracy in this affair so far.
Again, to reiterate, the whole "illegaly copied code" is, so far, just smoke and mirrors. There is no lawsuit alleging any copyright infringement. There is only a lawsuit alleging that IBM violated an agreement not to share some of their IP with third parties.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Informative)
Ah. You're apparently one of those people that thinks information is property and has absoutely no understanding of the LEGAL difference between copyright infringment and theft. Copyright infringement does not create any sort of "stolen goods" that need to be returned to the owner. The copyright holder is compensated with damages from the person who committed infringment, end of story.
Of course I expect you to go on a rant about how I'm "wrong", but I suggest you go argue with the US Supreme court:
"the rights of a copyright holder are `different' from the rights of owners of other kinds of property"
"the copyright holder owns only a bundle of intangible rights which can be infringed, but not stolen or converted"
"It follows that interference with copyright does not easily equate with theft, conversion or fraud. The Copyright Act even employs a separate term of art to define one who misappropriates a copyright: 'Anyone who violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright owner,' that is, anyone who trespasses into his exclusive domain by using or authorizing the use of the copyrighted work in one of the five ways set forth in the statute, 'is an infringer of the copyright.'"
The US supreme court states that you CANNOT carry over "theft" concepts to a copyright infringement case. The US supreme court specificly specificly rejected the claim that infringing copies "involved stolen goods". See Dowling vs. United States.
-
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Interesting)
Now will the REAL copyright holder please stand up?
Regards,
--
*Art
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
yep. It's AT&T code, but... (Score:5, Interesting)
The bad news is that we have code in Linux that's tracable back to AT&T, and it doesn't seem to be properly attributed.
The good news is that the easy solution to this is to simply properly attribute this code. (it was apparently released by SCO, under a BSD license, which requires attribution). A better solution might be to simply rewrite it from scratch.
Another good news/bad news is that this is very tight and highly functional code. As such it might be rather hard to rewrite without reproducing.. on the other hand, if that is the case, this might be an indication that this code is not properly copyrightable (IANAL, but my understanding is that functional, as opposed to expressive code is not considered copyrightable).
Better yet, can anybody get hold of Thompson and see if he remembers where he got this algorithm from?
That having been said, this is a very small chunck of code, and may have been further purloined from elsewhere. (anybody have a copy of "Knuth" floating around?)
(IANAL, but I sometimes get mistaken for one)
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Funny)
Does Darl know you've found his stash?
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:5, Informative)
BSD Comments (malloc), 1986:
/*
* 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.
*/
SGI Comments, 1992 - Present:
/*
* 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.
*/
Unix 7 (Public Domain) 1979:
/*
* 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.
* The core map unit is 64 bytes; the swap map unit
* is 512 bytes.
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
Wow, stunning proof, absolutely stunning that public domain source and comments would get used and modified.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, it is:
http://linux.oreillynet.com/lpt/a/1595/
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Interesting)
Not according to the judge in the BSD case. He ruled that comments were not part of the source code.
The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Actually, as SCO refuses to disclose the alleged infringing code, the damages will be zero, as SCO is demonstrating that any infringing code is worthless. (If it wasn't worthless, SCO would do everything possible to get it removed from the kernel.)
SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments.
Considering that SCO hasn't made any alleged infringing code (with or without comments) publically available, there has been _NO_ point made at all.
Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly.
The fact that independant people who have signed NDAs, and are given two snippets of code, the origin of which they have no knowledge of, say "the comments are the same" really proves nothing...
There is stolen code in Linux.
Please provide proof of that statement. So far, there has been NO PROOF . At all. Until there is, it's a really large leap to say that SCO is 100% right.
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.
No, a reasonable advocate would ask SCO for a detailed listing of all of the alleged infringing code. That's been done. SCO has refused.
It's impossible to 'write true black-box replacements' when nobody knows what to replace.
when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release
Why would a court rule that? SCO has not provided any proof, they continue to distribute any alleged infringing code themselves under the GPL.
Please take your troll somewhere else.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Informative)
see here [lwn.net]
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (Score:5, Funny)
Location in Sys 7 (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Location in Sys 7 (Score:5, Interesting)
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....
LWN Overview (Score:4, Informative)
I'm not the only one who noticed this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:I'm not the only one who noticed this... (Score:5, Informative)
In the ia64 directory? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
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.
Re:In the ia64 directory? (Score:5, Funny)
IT DOES NOT MAKE SENSE!
This.. (Score:5, Funny)
Kernel mailing list comment (Score:5, Informative)
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
Re:Kernel mailing list comment (Score:4, Informative)
Caldera granted rights to what WAS 16-bit and 32-bit code plus DERIVATIVES. The license wasn't a restriction as to what processor it could be run on.
Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (Score:5, Funny)
if (size == 0)
return) ((ulong_t NULL);
What is this, amateur night?
Re:Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (Score:5, Funny)
babelfished (Score:5, Informative)
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)
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.
Stolen Comments!!! (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Re:To sum up: (Score:5, Informative)
Re:To sum up: (Score:4, Informative)
http://oasis.dit.upm.es/~jantonio/document
Yes, that's right, they're claiming malloc() (Score:5, Informative)
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/ma
And here's where it was part of BSD 2.11 circa 1992:
http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.1
Oh, how I hope the mainstream tech press "gets" this.
Re:Yes, that's right, they're claiming malloc() (Score:4, Interesting)
News Posting [google.com]
Re:Yes, that's right, they're claiming malloc() (Score:4, Interesting)
Even if they don't, I did. Many others here did. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I don't think SCO really knows the history of all of this code. Especially since they are fairly recent to it's ownership. Instead of being silly, they should be hiring guys like you who know this code's history and true origins (sometimes line by line - you guys amaze me) to do a bit of reality checking for them. Then again, I can't think of anyone who would want to work for Darl.
Code from BSD? (Score:5, Informative)
That's BSD
Here's that comment in a 1984 Usenet posting! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Here's that comment in a 1984 Usenet posting! (Score:4, Interesting)
Who'd actually be surprised to find that SCO is using open source code improperly/illegaly?
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)
Looks like SGIs IP not SCOs (Score:4, Informative)
Insanity (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
This code was apparently donated by Caldara (SCO) (Score:5, Informative)
Start of Thread [iu.edu]
Conclusion [iu.edu]
It's HP's fault this stupid code is in there. (Score:5, Informative)
patch@hp.com according to bitkeeper.
Also, this has been removed in 2.6, mainly because it was a stupid implementation.
*scratches head* (Score:5, Funny)
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."
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:It's HP's fault this stupid code is in there. (Score:5, Funny)
Why is everyone fixated on the kernel source code? (Score:5, Interesting)
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!
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.
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: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:It is a wonderful day, but don't celebrate yet (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
It's from the BSD and PDP11 sources (Score:5, Interesting)
* 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.
"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.
OT, but SCO related (Score:5, Interesting)
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 ?
Code has been around since at least 1973 (Score:5, Informative)
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. ...
Re:Code has been around since at least 1973 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Code has been around since at least 1973 (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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.
Next time, write it in Perl (Score:5, Funny)
I'm pissed (Score:5, Funny)
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)
Important note for the sarcasm impared: yes, the above is sarcasm.
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.
It's got to be infringement..... (Score:5, Funny)
Analysis by Bruce Perens (Score:5, Informative)
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]
Legal summary of the SCO situation (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Legal summary of the SCO situation (Score:5, Informative)
a little allegory (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re:IANAC (Score:4, Informative)
If an undergraduate experienced in C were asked to do the same problem the code would look very similar. Hardly a trade secret. Others have commented that this appears in earlier malloc libraries. Perhaps there's the common ancestry, way before SCO existed.
Hardly enterprise class stuff. They had better have much much better examples or their case is toast.
Re:I can decipher it! (Score:5, Informative)
In other words it's English written using the Greek alphabet. Why somebody would do something so silly puzzles me, however.
Re:I can decipher it! (Score:5, Funny)
"what does that C code mean"
"it's all greek to me"
har, har.
Re:I can decipher it! (Score:5, Funny)
But that's actually the same thing. It's a little known secret that all foreign languages are really just English spelled/pronounced wrong or encoded in a different character set. It's just one of the things that they don't want you to know.
Translation of the article (Score:5, Informative)
The battle for the legality of Linux is becoming increasingly melodramatic: Two weeks ago, RedHat CEO Mathew Szulik declared himself Saviour of the Free World, and called for all Linux-Supporters to join the battle for freedom from the software industry. His opponent darl McBride from SCO strikes an even more martialic pose: a James Bond fighting against the forces of Darkness -- incarnated in the Open Source Movement.
McBride spent no less than two hours at the beginnign of the SCO symposium to clarify his company's legal position. Backed by pictures and music from various Bond flicks, he attempted to rally the supporters of the formerly cult company from Santa Cruz to his fight for the Good Cause. The SCO Group has started a legal battle against IBM for alleged copyright violations and misuse of SCO-owned UNIX code in Linux. Star attorney David Boies, famous for fielding the US anti-trust effort against Microsoft, represents SCO against IBM. More than 1500 major Linux-using companies have received admonitions to pay licensing fees from SCO.
With Vice CEO Chris Sontag as sidekick, McBride offered several examples from Kernel 2.5 and 2.6 that are meant to prove that several program parts were transplanted unmodified from UNIX -- such an example is here [heise.de]. Duplicated typos in the commentary as well as unusual coding style have left traces, says Sontag. To porve this, McBride employed teams for pattern recognition to parse tens of thousands of lines of code. The few sequences of actual code shown besides the commentaries were largely scrambled, supposedly to protect SCO copyright. They were, however, representative for a thousand other just like them, emphasizes Sontag. Multiple developers had illegally transplanted code into Linux and then distributed the source to users and developers. The software in question is nothing trivial, but contains integral operating system functions used for demanding applications and extremely secure environments in companies. Among them are the multiprocessor technologies NUMA and SMP, which under UNIX licensing cost 10,000$ or more.
Rouhgly 700 lines of code for the SMP technology are supposed to have gone into Kernel versions 2.4 and 2.5. All in all, SCO claims to have found no less than 800.000 lines of duplicated code -- one example is shown here [heise.de]. Attorney Mark Heise from Boies' law firm joined the SCO chiefs on the podium in Las Vegas. He emphasized that the GPL did not offer protection against copyright claims from SCO. The Unix license that SCO bought from AT&T in 1994 guarantees SCO ownership of System V copyright and all AT&T software and sublicense rights. The license agreement, originally drawn up by AT&T lawyers, which has since gone over to SCO, is unequivocal concerning scope, Heise affirmed. Accordingly, the license gives the licensee (e.g. IBM) the right to use the software internally for commercial purposes. Modifications and derivatives are subject to the license just like the original. They cannot be used for or by third parties.
"Now we finally know how Linux has matured from hobby OS to IT-company platform," Sontag jibes. "If something sounds too good to be true, it usually isn't," topped McBride. Evolved technology simply cannot be had for free. "Free Software -- not our thing." UNXIX comprises 20 years of development work: Based on it, SCO wants to make money for another 20 years. McBride appealed for support from partners and developers from the UNIX community, otherwise, "the times for good business might soon be over." GPL and Open Source destroy legal business models -- compensations and a legal business model for the future are therefore necessary. Heise seconded: That SCO once distributed its code as Linux distributor, did not mean that Linux users where protected from all demands because of the GPL. Copyright for code can only be obtained by a written contract wit
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.