SCO Complaint Filed -- Including Code Samples 663
btempleton writes "The folks at Groklaw have posted a story including a preliminary copy of Caldera/SCO's amended complaint, including lines of code they allege were improperly included in Linux. The PDF can be found at this story The file lists unix filenames with line numbers and filenames and line numbers from the Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, so folks can now go into real depth."
Netcraft confirms it! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Netcraft confirms it! (Score:5, Funny)
is it only me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:is it only me... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:is it only me... (Score:5, Funny)
4. Prophet???
SB
No "real depth" here... (Score:5, Informative)
Will Groklaw play a direct role? (Score:5, Insightful)
PJ and her legal elves certainly deserve our thanks.
Re:Will Groklaw play a direct role? (Score:5, Interesting)
So yeah, they're definately getting direct credit, and due
Re:Will Groklaw play a direct role? (Score:5, Informative)
OSRM has simultaneously retained me, part-time, to work on their indemnification project as their Director of Litigation Risk Research. Not only that but they are donating a certain portion of my time to Groklaw, which will free me from having to do so much nonrelated paralegal work and be free to really focus for the next year on this project. I am very excited about the project and I hope we'll have fun too. Groklaw will continue, meanwhile, as it is, and it remains noncommercial and my personal baby. Well, more accurately, ours, because Groklaw wouldn't be much without you.
Which is from this [groklaw.net] Groklaw article.
I should also mention that Groklaw, which was originally a completely separate site, has long been hosted by iBiblio. IBM has donated to them.
That fact, of which no one who knows anything is particularly surprised, is what Daniel Lyons of Forbes added to some random blog posts and turned into a conspiracy article. Barring them firing Mr. Lyons for it, this has sealed my oppinion that their "research" consists primarily of press releases with little or no actual independent research and minimal, if any, editorial oversight.
In other words, I wouldn't trust their advice for managing a child's lemonade stand, much less my finances.
Lyon's prediction (Score:5, Interesting)
SCO Group will settle its lawsuit against IBM. Both sides will declare victory. The Linux community will turn on IBM.
The only surprise here is that someone (Forbes) pays Dan to write this stuff (apparently the New York Times's fantasy journalism team was all filled up). Dan goes on to point out that Linux and VoIP technologies are no different than Pets.com and other marketing fluff:
technologies like Linux and voiceover-IP still involves this crazy notion that companies can make money by giving things away.
This is like Dan calling electricity a "crazy notion" because he listened to some fly-by-night business scheme involving electrical current. Looks like Forbes is got some fat to trim.
*scoove*
Visions of Jury Selection (Score:5, Funny)
Prospective Juror: "Well, I have a masters in Computer Engineering..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, sir, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, maam?"
Prospective Juror: "Well, I am in charge of keeping the office server running..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, maam, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, maam?"
Prospective Juror: "Well, I use one to create reports..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, maam, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, sir?"
Prospective Juror: "Camputersh? Oh, you mean the Gateway? I guess their ok. That Mine Sweeper game sure is fun!"
SCO Lawyer: "Thankyou sir, one more question: What is your experience with the web?"
Prospective Juror: "Wha... Oh, you mean Internet Explorer (TM)? Don't use it much 'cause I got AOL (TM). I guess it's ok. I got this eeh-mail from this nice Nigerian man the other day..."
SCO Lawyer: "*DING*DING*DING* We have a winner!"
2.2 Kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since SCO has still not actually complied with previous discovery motions, submitted millions of lines of code to IBM in paper form (real class act, they are) and keeps changing their case, my guess is we will see the end of this case, perhaps this year.
UNLESS, of course, the Novell vs. SCO suit sidetracks the IBM suit until we can figure out who actually owns Unix...
Re:2.2 Kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)
I have read quite a bit of the filing, and it appears contract claims are not fully disappearing.
Quoting Groklaw:
5. This case is not about the debate about the relative merits of proprietary versus open source software. Nor is this case about IBM's right to develop and promote open source software if it decides to do so in furtherance of its independent business objectives, so long as it does so without SCO's proprietary information. This case is, and is only, about the right os SCO not to have its proprietary software misappropriated and misused in violation of its written agreements and well-settled law.
And its not over until its over. I don't know if you live in America, but as someone who worked in a law office doing paralegal and investigation, I can promise you this COULD still last a while, as far as the courts are concerned.
The judge *CAN* decide to wait until it is decided who owns the code (to potentially dismiss with prejudice). The judge can also decide to address that issue in his own court first. This is yet another contract dispute.
I agree that it doesn't look good for SCO, but it never did. They were not trying to win, they were trying to pump and dump, to inflate the stock price, and fight their way toward the door so they can take the money and run. But with the quirkiness of the courts, it still ain't over. I was being optimistic when I said this year...
Re:2.2 Kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear alot of heat about
I predict (Score:5, Interesting)
And it will include commented lines "*uck you, SCO"
Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
I agree. I admit there is a possibility that there is some bad code in Linux (ala SGI, for instance) but at least now we can look through what they are *claiming* is theirs, research the origins for that code, then make a decision. If there is any questionable code, then do the right thing: replace it. My guess is *if* there is infringing code, it would be very minor sections since any large section would have been spotted by now.
Ironic that SCO has been doing everything they can to prevent programmers from doing the right thing.
Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO's claim at this point appears to be that, because IBM developed technologies like JFS [wikipedia.org] and RCU [wikipedia.org], [Man, the Wik knows everything] then those technologies automatically became SCO's once they were implemented within a UNIX derivative.
In my admittedly non-legal opinion, just because a certain OS technique was discovered and perfected on a UNIX-derived platform, that shouldn't mean that IBM loses the right to bring the same technology to any other platform they're interested in.
It's not about IBM swiping SCO's secret wonder code. It's about IBM developing its own secret wonder code and then being told by SCO that they have no right to use it.
No there wont (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I predict (Score:5, Insightful)
Won't matter. The code in question appears to be contributions by IBM -- things like JFS. There's never been any question but what IBM made those contributions. Now it's an issue of whether IBM making those contributions violated their old contract with AT&T. Which is exactly what the claims from SCO got pared down to this week.
Assume for the moment that IBM loses the contract case -- which seems unlikely. In general, it's damned hard to put "trade secrets" back into the bottle once they're out and as widely distributed as these. The court would probably award SCO damages, but would also note that the secrets are no longer secret, which would preclude SCO from actually getting damages or license fees from anyone else. Any real lawyers willing to comment on that?
Mirror of PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Thanks PJ for all you do
Re:Mirror of PDF (Score:5, Informative)
http://saintaardvarkthecarpeted.com/mirror/Doc-100 -A.pdf [saintaardv...rpeted.com]
Re:Mirror of PDF (Score:5, Informative)
Priceless (Score:5, Funny)
trying to follow the story links... painful but free
reading the comments... free
finding someone who posted a mirror... free
downloading the pdf from the mirror at 150Kb/s half an hour after the mirror was posted even though its modded to 5... priceless
dude, where the fuck do you get that bandwidth? hook a brother up with a shell and some webspace?
Re:Mirror of PDF (Score:5, Informative)
http://diode.ecn.purdue.edu/~abrezinsky/docs/Do
Blank lines have been copyrighted by SCO (Score:5, Funny)
Ah-ha! (Score:5, Funny)
j/k
Re:Ah-ha! (Score:5, Funny)
Millions of lines? (Score:5, Informative)
And they're ALL written by IBM. And IBM's perpetual license says they own their contributions.
Summary (Score:5, Funny)
'int main ()' appears repeatedly in both UNIX System V and Linux
'#include ' is also obvious stealing of code, appearing in many Linux source files
Furthermore, 'for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_LENGTH; i++)' style loops are obviously copied by IBM developers intimately familiar with the original implementations.
SCO's case is strong.
Re:Summary (Score:5, Funny)
It's long, but interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
- Linux is derived from System V. (75)
- IBM has endeavored to control the open source community. (76)
- IBM plans to destroy UNIX. (77)
- Linus Torvalds can't say who contributed what to Linux. (78)
- A significant amount of UNIX source code is present in Linux 2.4-2.6 kernels. (79)
- Linux developers are incapable of developing enterprise-grade software without stealing from SCO. (80, 81)
- Only IBM's involvement in Linux made Linux viable for enterprise use, and because IBM had access to System V (82), if follows that
- if follows that Linux is a clone of UNIX. (83)
Re:It's long, but interesting. (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes, very interesting indeed. Perhaps they should take a look at arch/i386/kernel/smpboot.c file of any recent kernel:
Original development of Linux SMP code supported by Caldera. Damn those Linux hippies are outrageous people! First they steal from you and then they have the nerve to thank you. Bastards. Also repeated in an old SMP page by Alan Cox [linux.org.uk].
The claimed code (Score:5, Interesting)
Rest Assured... it's all ok (Score:5, Interesting)
Any code in common is probably easily found in the OS/2 sources.
The above text was blatently stolen from a groklaw comment.
heh. Check out #87 (Score:5, Interesting)
87. By making the Linux operating system free to end users, IBM could undermine and destroy the ability of any of its competitors to charge a fee for distribution of UNIX software in the enterprise market. Thus, IBM, with its army of Global Services integrators who earn money by selling services, would gain a tremendous advantage over all its competitors who earn money by selling UNIX licenses.
Seems like someone's sore because IBM has a better business model.
Re:heh. Check out #87 (Score:5, Insightful)
The entire court filing is full of this type of crap.
Reading the pdf... Like this line... (Score:5, Insightful)
I count at least 3 major logical errors in that section, and find it's existence in this document unjustified.
1. Windows is not an operating system, but a family of them - Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT are the operating systems.
2. They were not all designed with Intel as the only manufacturer of systems that the OS should work on.
3. The OS does much more than work with processor "chips".
It seems unlikely to me that lawyers proefficient with modern computer systems worked on this document.
It is still full of false and fraudulent clames. (Score:5, Interesting)
Even if we ignore what the term IBM PC means, even if we ignore iRMS, even if we ignore OS2 this still leaves AIX/386 which as far as I recall used to run a considerable part of NATO radar infrastructure. OK, IBM insisted on it being useable only on boards with 1M L2 cache, but I it happily ran on much less then that.
This would have made sense, in May 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
IBM has violated 2.01 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, using and assisting others to use the Software Products (including System V source code, derivative works, documentation rrelated thereto and methods based thereon) for external purposes that are different from, and broader than, IBM's own internal business purposes. By actively supporting, assisting and promoting the transfer of UNIX technology to Linux, and using its access to UNIX technology to accomplish this objective, IBM is (a) using the Software Product for external business purposes, which include use for the benefit of Linus Torvalds, the general Linux community and IBM's Linux distribution partners, Red Hat, Inc., Novell, Inc., SuSE Linux AG and their respective subsidiaries; and is (b) directly and indirectly preparing unauthorized derivative works based on the Software Products and unauthorized modifications thereto in violation of 2.01 of the Software Agreement.
Notice that SysV code is not listed amongst the files in the complaint. The above claim is only true in the case that SCO's Idea of a derivative work is valid.
IMHO, this is actually a reasonable leagal document, where there may be an actual dispute over the idea of a derivative work. However, SCO should not be allowed to change its tack in the middle of discovery, until now this case has been about a claim of copying of sysV code and breach of contract, but now they are claiming here that there was no copying and IBM breached its contract by contributing code that IBM owns into Linux. SCO no longer claims, as they did in there initial filing, that IBM improperly contributed sysV code into Linux. This should not be allowed on the grounds that until now, SCO has been using improper contributions of sysV code attempt to persuade people to pay license fees. This also means that SCO has once again lied publicly about the ammount severity of the copying. In fact the Linux community would not be a party to the dispute if JFS, RCU, and NUMA were removed from the kernel. (These documents do not explain how SMP is affected accept by NUMA.) In that case the court cannot ignore what SCO has stated in public, while allowing them to state something substantivly different in court, its one or the other SCO, not both.
In any case Linux is indemnified by the fact that they asked IBM if all of there technologies were contributed in good faith, IBM said yes, and the Kernel development community had no reason not to belive them.
I still think that SCO has a lot of explaining to do when this is all said and done.
Re:This would have made sense, in May 2003 (Score:5, Insightful)
There isn't any meaningful dispute. The agreements with AT&T covering both AIX and Dynix code use "derivative work" in the same way it is understood in all copyright law. There is nothing in the agreement that suggests that code which contains no copyrightable elements of SysV is a derivative work. The famous clause about treating derivative works the same as the SOFTWARE PRODUCT is just a statement of normal copyright protection.
Although she hasn't said so, this is the way the judge sees it. That is why she ruled in December that SCOG gets no discovery from IBM until they make their claims with specificity. They said they can't do this until they get the AIX development codebase from IBM, and the judge ignored them.
SCO's requests are all clear now (Score:5, Informative)
If you look at the list, you'll notice that most of the files are header files. These header files are probably available in the off-the-shelf releases of these OS'es. They have then probably does some compare and came up with the resulting list.
If they get all sources from IBM, they probably will perform the exact same comparison, but on all the new files they got.
However, we shouldn't be so worried about this. According to one post [groklaw.net] on groklaw, the contents of these files are mostly #include's anyway.
Connections.. (Score:5, Interesting)
What are they talking about here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. If source code was copied from protected UNIX code, how the @#$@%@# would Linus know about it? He doesn't have access to the protected source code - it's protected! The only way to know is if the owners of the protected source code make the claim and are able to back it up! How can Torvalds be faulted for not being clarvoyant? Do they mean identify it after the fact? AFAIK no one can say yet that the origins of code X can't be identified. SCO hasn't even let us TRY - they won't tell us what they want identified!
If what they are actually saying is that open source shouldn't be allowed to proceed simply because it doesn't have massive paperwork assigning every bit of code to some source, they've been hitting the crack again. Email archives, content management back trails anyone? And we can go further than that if we are really forced to - the FSF has been getting copyrights assigned to it for years just in case things come to that pass, and if it becomes utterly necessary that might become common practice.
What I'm hoping will come out of all this is a way that open source projects can set themselves up so that no one can sue them without them actually having done something wrong. (OK, OK - I know anyone can still bring the lawsuit. I mean create a situation where the project dispose of the suit in such a way that it doesn't cost the project or developers much of anything and discourages idiots like SCO from attempting it.) That would be useful, and if SCO is the start of a trend may become very necessary.
Fundimental Issue of this case..... (Score:5, Informative)
Here's the issue as best as can be broken down from the whole case Paragraph "IBM's Scheme"...section 91)
AIX's confidential and propriatery UNIX source code extends only to the code that IBM got from SCO originally to start development from.As an author of add-in modules and enhancements, IBM can distribute under MULTIPLE licenses...It can choose dual license if it wishes....OSS and AIX/SCO.
SCO must now show where their original license stipulates "..all your base..." Failing that, IBM can do whatever it wants to do with it's own creations.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A damp squib, again (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A damp squib, again (Score:5, Informative)
I happen to have a copy of "80386 System Software Writer's Guide" by Intel on my desk (ala 1987). This book provides a framework for OS development on the 386 and alot of code to boot. If the entry.S code is derived from Intel code it would be in this book or a later edition. The idea is really not that far fetched. Writing protected mode entry/exit code is at best tedious and entirely unnecessary as intel not only provided code, but in most cases the optimal solutions to the problem as no one understood the nuances of protected mode better then them.
How it works... (Score:5, Interesting)
IBM Develops some technology for OS/2
IBM adds it to AIX
SCO (claiming to own copyrights to Un*x) says anything derivative of Unix (AIX in this case) becomes their IP
SCO Sues IBM for copyright infringement
IBM demonstrates this technology existed prior and was given to both operatings systems as an add-on
SCO loses
Just a thought and comment on this whole issue. (Score:5, Interesting)
So let me get this right IBM gave code from their expensive product to a free product...
Hmmm.... why???
SCO should be made to demonstrate what motivation IBM had in acting this way -- other than IBM knowing they could sell services better than OS's...
That's an easy one (Score:5, Insightful)
By pushing the free OS, Big Blue can use it to sell consultancy, support and best of all, the leases on their fantastically expensive hardware, while at the same time undermining win2k based systems and harnessing the power of volunteering and crazed idealogue hobbyist developers.
It's a masterstroke strategy, where the payoffs easilly make up for the $Billion Dollar outlay and there are beau-coup bucks more to be saved by phasing out the proprietary UNIX development.
A rock-solid case... I stand corrected - (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct me if I am wrong, but POSIX compliance does not require a license from SCO. Defining these functions similarly to the SysV style is not a breach of IP. It's the code that these functions represent that may be in breach, but SCO does not outline any of this.
Also, the JFS file system is IBM's own work. Yes, if IBM makes a change to the actually system v code base by adding jfs, then those changes are only usable by the licensees. But there is no indication that the implementation of JFS made any impact on that SYSV standard. Its a code base that is external to the licensed system v code and is therefore not under any of SCO's jurisdiction.
In conlusion, their case is null and void. I hope their board of directors spend a few years behind bars for this spectacular abuse of the US legal system. Maybe IBM can pay off some inmates to make Darl someones bitch.
What ever happened to David Boies? (Score:5, Interesting)
And yes, I now this is not 100% on-topic. However I think the disappearance of a key figure is noteworthy (I would argue more so that SCO claiming ownership of IBMs work, as they are here).
Interesting move (Score:5, Insightful)
Version 2.4.1-01 (Score:5, Informative)
Alex
Copyrights, derivative works and how it applies... (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, SCO has no copyrights to IBM's code (they only own copyright to their own code, that's why they can't force IBM to give it to them). Quoting copyright law: According to SCO: So perhaps it is possible that IBM violated the contract by not keeping any contributed source within the license scope, although did they not meet this condition by keeping the AIX derivative work to themselves? (The materials being the final derivative work that is AIX.) They are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please. Of course IANAL, so judge for yourself.
Re:Copyrights, derivative works and how it applies (Score:5, Insightful)
No, they are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please, subject to the terms of a contract that they signed prior to writing that code in which they agreed to limitations on those uses. The contract appears to allow them to use the code in binary form in any of their own products. But it also says that they can't reveal the methods (eg, source code) without AT&T's (now SCO's) permission. There's an addendum to the contract that appears to provide them with a way out of that part of the agreement. One interesting part of the case will be those bits that came from Dynix; they were developed under a contract like the one IBM signed, but without the addendum; when IBM bought those bits, they probably can't bring them under the IBM addendum.
IBM really needs to have this case play out all the way, in order to establish once and for all what portions of their work the contract applies to. SCO's betting a real long shot here, and there's no way IBM can be found liable for $5B in damages to SCO, but it needs to get settled.
Windows NT actually killed SCO (Score:5, Insightful)
Blaming the demise of SCO on Linux is stupid. They were not moving forward. What really killed the horse drawn carriage was the motor vehicle changing the whole business. SCO blaming Linux for loss of biz is really having a big scratch through the garbage can. Linux is part of a *nix renesance that SCO is not contributing to, and IMHO, has no rights to.
It's a tactic to get more discovery (Score:5, Insightful)
Cooties! (Score:5, Funny)
Under the Cootie theory of copyright and trade secret law, Linux looks like Unix, so now Linux has cooties. IBM touched Unix, thus giving cooties to AIX. JFS acquired cooties when it was ported to AIX, even though JFS didn't have cooties when it was originally developed. Thus, Linux has cooties because it has AIX's cooties which AIX got from staring cross-eyed at Unix. Linux has the same header lines as Unix, therefore Linux has Unix cooties. In conclusion, anyone touching Linux will get cooties and owe a cootie tax to SCO, which will soon have more money than Scrooge McDuck.
For more information, see "Everything I needed to know about intellectual property law I learned on the elementary school playground.", by Darl McBride.
Re:So look forward to the next patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise we'd just look guilty.
Re:So look forward to the next patch (Score:5, Insightful)
Nice try bucko. Though some /. users might be too stupid to understand the concept of mitigating damages, but most of us are not.
Besides, the ones who have a third grade concept of liability ("we better not try to fix it, otherwise we'd just look guilty") wouldn't be able to fix the alleged infringing code anyway, so their opinions are worth nearly as much as SCO's claims.
Re:Babel round 2 (Score:5, Funny)
No, we slash the freakin' tires.
Re:Babel round 2 (Score:5, Funny)
>No, we slash the freakin' tires.
Carefull, they may be a BBC investigative reporter reading!
You mean a Forbes "reporter" (e.g. Daniel Lyons) (Score:5, Interesting)
Honestly, were I his editor, I would have fired him after that. Investigative journalism it was not. This gives me very serious misgivings about trusting anything Forbes says, because I cannot imagine how that story could have slipped past even the most minimal editorial review...
It seemed rather apropos, yet disturbing, that that article was meant to be an attack on the credibility of Groklaw, after PJ of Groklaw chided him for accepting SCO's statements without any apparent research, as he had not done even the most minimal fact-checking.
I would be willing to bet that he is glad that I am not his boss... To anyone from Forbes reading this: I value research more than oppinion. And yes, I do mention your failures to anyone I know who might even think of subscribing.
Worst reporter ever. [google.com] (Maybe seeing his face on Google image search for that would make his day?)
No, very dangerous move (Score:5, Interesting)
Such a move wouldn't be very smart, even if it was technically possible. SCO could easily argue that "those evil linux people removed it because they knew it was infringing code".
It's much better to leave it in, and show a little patience for the legal system. Believe it or not, the Linux community really isn't getting hurt all that much in the corporate marketplace according to surveys I've seen...and the non-corporate linux user base certainly couldn't give a hoot.
I still say this would be a whole lot easier if kernel developers stood up for their work and reputations by doing whatever they can in their respective legal systems(imagine, lawsuits in 30 countries. The RIAA would be proud). So far, all we've seen is a lot of (amusing, but pointless in a court of law) hot air from Linus.
Re:No, very dangerous move (Score:5, Informative)
You sir, are correct. (Score:5, Informative)
Parties (including plaintiffs) that do not try to mitigate damages are generally held in disdain. Just remember: the judicial system is lazy and doesn't *really* want to hear your case. They want you to work it out. If you can't work it out, they are even too lazy to determine fault and usually just split the difference ('equity' law).
Re:At the very least (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't worry, you couldn't even if you wanted to [lwn.net].
Jay (=
Oops (Score:5, Funny)
To make matters worse, he's a McBride and not a McGroom.
Re:Oops (Score:5, Funny)
Mc means son-of.. he's the son of the bride, not son of the spouse. Meaning he was born out of wedlock, making him an honest to goodness Bastard.
Quick summary: nothing special (Score:5, Informative)
Most telling is that none of the code listed is from TSG, OpenServer or UnixWare, it's all IBM-authored code and the entire gambit rests on the breach-of-contract details.
Cue "Funeral March for a Marionette [palle.net]"...
Oh... and no more "millions of lines" claims (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh... and no more "millions of lines" claims (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Oh... and no more "millions of lines" claims (Score:5, Funny)
No need to change, I've been reading it as S COX for quite a while.
Re:Oh... and no more "millions of lines" claims (Score:5, Interesting)
I dunno; SCOX buyers seem to have their heads in an invincible reality-distortion field. The next Slashdot poll should be "What will SCOX close at on Monday?":
* $31.89
* $13.75
* $10.00
* $5.00
* $1.00
* -$666.00
The commenter closest without going over wins 30 karma points.
Re:Oh... and no more "millions of lines" claims (Score:5, Insightful)
Wishful thinking, i fear. For a non-programmer, it looks like SCO did produce hard evidence, and so their stock will rise, at least at first.
Re:Quick summary: nothing special (Score:5, Insightful)
And up to $5 Billion for damages.
a quick comparison. (Score:5, Interesting)
sco claim:
dynix kernel/os/kern_clock.c 2028-2059
linux 2.4.1 arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 25-28, 662-664, 676-684
25-28:
#include <asm/smp.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
#include <asm/mpspec.h>
662-664:
* useful with a profiling multiplier != 1
*/
if (!user)
676-684:
prof_counter[cpu] = prof_multiplier[cpu];
if (prof_counter[cpu] != prof_old_multiplier[cpu]) {
__setup_APIC_LVTT(calibration_result/prof_counter
prof_old_multiplier[cpu] = prof_counter[cpu];
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
update_process_times(user);
#endif
Re:a quick comparison. (Score:5, Funny)
Wrong version of the file (Score:5, Informative)
diff -u --recursive --new-file 2.4.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c v2.4.1-rc/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
--- 2.4.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c Wed Dec 6 02:13:48 2000
+++ v2.4.1-rc/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c Tue Feb 20 16:46:33 2001
@@ -22,6 +22,11 @@
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/mc146818rtc.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/rclock.h>
+#endif
+
#include <asm/smp.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
@@ -654,6 +659,10 @@
{
int user = user_mode(regs);
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+ int cpunum = cpu_number_map(cpu);
+#endif
+
* The profiling function is SMP safe. (nothing can mess
@@ -663,6 +672,17 @@
*/
if (!user)
x86_do_profile(regs->eip);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+ if (((RC_PLOCAL_rclockcurlist(cpunum) != NULL) &&
+ RC_GEN_LT(RC_PLOCAL_rclockgen(cpunum), rc_ctrlblk.curgen)) ||
+ (RC_PLOCAL_rclockcurlist(cpunum) == NULL &&
+ RC_PLOCAL_rclocknxtlist(cpunum) != NULL) ||
+ test_bit(cpunum, &rc_ctrlblk.needctxtmask) ||
+ ((jiffies - rc_ctrlblk.clock) > RCLOCK_STALL_WARN))
+ rc_chk_callbacks(user || (current == init_tasks[cpunum]));
+#endif
+
if (--prof_counter[cpu] <= 0) {
Good summary from a GrokLaw AC poster (Score:5, Interesting)
However, they have thereby limited their current claims to these sections. And five beeeellion dollars.
Re:Good summary from a GrokLaw AC poster (Score:5, Interesting)
Okay, I'm too lazy here on saturday nite. Has anybody done the math to figure out how much the entire linux kernel would be worth in SCO's ridiculous view?
They want $699 for these x number of lines of 'stolen' code. If linux kernel has y lines of code total, then the kernel should be worth (y/x)*699 dollars. What are x and y?
Maybe we can use this to our advantage. For example, with MSFT, pay $300 for a kernel worth $300. With linux, pay nothing for a kernel worth $$$$$.
Re:Good summary from a GrokLaw AC poster (Score:5, Informative)
"SCO claims that the sysv license they inherited in their acquisition of novell's ip gives them right to all derived implementations, the way the GPL does."
Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again.
The GPL cannot, and does not claim to, give the author of an original work any rights over the original portions of a derived work.
In this case, the original work is SysV, the derived work is AIX, and the original portions of the derived work are JFS, EVMS, etc. If SysV were licensed under the GPL, IBM would be required to also license AIX under the GPL. However, nothing would prevent IBM from taking JFS and EVMS code, and putting it into another piece of software with GPL-incompatible license.
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Insightful)
And if I only used that one sided court filing from SCO as evidence, then I would agree. Fortunately, this is not the only piece of evidence.
First of all, IBM has taken great pains to insure that anyone on their Linux team has never had access to AIX or Sys5 code. It was setup as a clean room exercise. So, their statements are not damning, since they take great care to keep the two divisions isolated from each other.
Second, if you read something beside this ONE filing, you would know that SCO is claiming that any software or code that has ever been included in AIX is a derivative, which is not accurate. IBM had developed some journaling code in OS/2, then ported it over to AIX, yet SCO is claiming it has rights to this software, even tho it is trivial to demonstrate it is not derived from Unix, it is ported to Unix.
Third, just because a concept was introduced into Unix originally doesn't mean its infringing to be included in Linux. Some knowlege becomes virtually "Public Domain" simply because after 20 years, it has been talked about, documented, researched and experimented with by Universities and individuals. Figuring out how to impliment a feature based upon published documentation and freely available (and useable) information is called reverse engineering, not infringement. For it to be infringing, it must be a "cut and paste" job. Independent discovery is not illegal, even in America.
Fourth, IBM helping Linux is not illegal in and of itself. Implying that IBM licensed code, so any help that they were to give Linux is illegal is beyond ignorant. Their first major contribution was over 100 different printer drivers, for instance.
Fifth, IBM has extensive review about what is GPLed and what is not. They have made it perfectly clear that they will not release code wholesale, and instead are releasing code with full support and documentation, after the code has been reviewed. While they *could* make a mistake and release a portion of code that they should not have, it is unlikely considering all the checks and balances they are going through.
Sixth, there is reason to believe SCO owns the right to USE and LICENSE Unix as it sees fit, but not the copyright to actual code. There is even a lawsuit about it. But if you had read more than this one filing, you would know about Novell vs. SCO.
Seventh, So far all the code released before today as proof has been proven to be in the Public Domain and/or BSD. I have not looked at the actual code released today, but I am sure Bruce Perens will have a release within a day or three with the dirt on that. Also, some of the header files that allegedly infringe are from pre-1.0 days, and are easily documented as owned by Linus, since they were posted on USENET freely back in 91-92.
I could go on and on, but this is already more than an AC deserves.
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Informative)
While this may be true for some things (although, really, has IBM actually said this?), it's definitely not true for the RCU stuff, which very clearly says it was " based on original DYNIX/ptx code [sourceforge.net]".
I think this probably won't matter, since IBM can definitely make a good case that RCU isn't derivative of SysV/"SCO" code even though it was implemented in Dynix -- but the path through which this got into Linux seems pretty clear.
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Informative)
Still, there's no (legal) harm in using clean room approach, and it might help in arguing that certain piece of code could not have been copied verbatim.
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Ah, at last! (Score:5, Interesting)
Ah yes, I think it was a company called "Caldera" who did that (http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html). You know, they're called "SCO" now...
I'm still working on my rebuttal... (Score:5, Funny)
It'll be out soon in hardback.
Re:I'm still working on my rebuttal... (Score:5, Funny)
It's just so ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
These now-common approaches to improving the reliability and flexibility of Unix were part of IBM's value-add to Unix... a bit of heritage from their mainframe and minicomputer perspective. It wasn't enough in the marketplace to overcome IBM's late-ness to Unix and the odd uniquenesses of its registry-based configuration, but it did help somewhat in enterprise environments.
Anyway, after 10 years in the Unix market, IBM decides that having had minimal/modest success in the commercial Unix marketplace, perhaps they would have better luck in the free Unix marketplace (making money selling services,) particularly if they can catch this wave early rather than spending a decade worrying about cannibalization of their own product line. So they take the AIX 'crown jewels' and share them with the free Unix community.
And SCO claims that they are derivatives of SCO's original Unix work?!
If any version of AT&T Unix/Unixware that shipped to people like IBM included journal filesystems or volume management or NUMA SMP, then maybe I could buy it, but given the dictionary definitions of "derived" I just can't.
(dictionary.com entry for
"derive": "to obtain or receive from a source".
"derivative": "copied or adapted from others")
--LP
Re:It's just so ironic... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uhh, they invented the PC, *and* they ported AIX to it in the late 80's.
Re:code references in case groklaw get /.ed (Score:5, Interesting)
You can find the code in these patches provided by IBM:
EVMS evms_aix.h [sf.net]
JFS ref/jfs_inode.h [ibm.com]
RCU-2.4.1-01 [sourceforge.net]
Something remotely similar to the rcu patch was eventually merged into 2.5.43 and into United Linux. The EVMS header is used by the compatibility module for AIX partitions and is also in United Linux but nowhere in an official linux. The jfs inode header is not used anywhere, because it is the OS/2 file and was provided only for reference.
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:In other news (Score:5, Funny)
actually i'd be surprised if the match were all that close.
Re:As I AC'd on Groklaw: SCO cannot count (Score:5, Informative)
for (i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
foo(i);
}
Re:Why useless PDf files? (Score:5, Informative)
Head on over to GrokLaw [groklaw.net]
They are converting all the documents to HTML and searchable text as we speak.
Re:False claims to prop up stock price? (Score:5, Interesting)