Slashdot Mirror

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.

go google it and you will see we DO know where it came from. It is actually public domain now, its code from 1979 (just google the first sentence in quotes) Here is one example. My understanding that the code is also in BSD.

So SCO has demonstrated that Linux has Public Domain code in it, just like SCO. Unless SCO owns the public domain, this code is totally meaningless. The funnier part is how they tried to ROT 255 it with a different font, even tho the code has no IP value whatsoever.

This IS a bogus example of SCO's claim. They can't claim PD from 32V as SCO IP, especially since Caldera already BSD'd 32V, and this code is pre-32V, thus likely PD. (got that?) :)

Perens has done a great job of collating what all of us have dug up here.

Short form is, this comment and the code in the second slide go together (although the actual code on the second slide has obviously been tampered with, and will not compile,) and the original work on which it is all based was written by Dennis Ritchie ca. August 1973. It traces not only in the V6 and V5 code I've posted links to, but to V3, the oldest version of Unix which survives for us to read today, and beyond. Several derivatives have been released under BSD licensing, so it occurence in (old) versions of Linux is completely legal.

As many of us have suspected since the first rumours of Caldera/SCOs new business model surfaced, they've got a lot of pattern matches but not the brains to realise that just because a string of characters occurs in a file they bought from the Santa Cruz Operation it doesn't necessarily follow that they have unencumbered copyright on it wherever it might appear.

Of course, Ken might have lifted this from even earlier sources.

Yeah. It appears under directory "dmr" (Dennis M. Ritchie, perhaps?) in an earlier version (somewhere between 3rd and 4th edition) of the kernel.

See Nsys/sys/nsys/dmr/malloc.c.html for the listing, and back up from there for the explanation of the "nsys" files. It may well be that this code has been in since the very first C-language version of Unix.

At SCO's annual reseller show, the company's executives put up a couple of slides as a way of demonstrating how Unix code had been "stolen" and put into Linux. The two slides were photographed and have since appeared on Heise Online; see them here and here. The escape of these slides has allowed the Linux community to do something it has been craving since the beginning of the SCO case: track down the real origins of the code that SCO claims as its own. The results, in this case, came quick and clear. They do not bode well for SCO.

The code in question is found in arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c in the 2.4 tree. It carries an SGI copyright. It seems that SGI was not entirely forthcoming in documenting the source of its source; some of the code in question was, indisputably, not written at SGI. So where does it really come from?

This code is from sys/sys/malloc.c in V7 Unix. It has been widely published; among other things, it can be found in Lion's Commentary on Unix (if you can get a copy). It featured in this 1984 Usenet posting. And, crucially, it has been circulated with the V7 Unix source, which was released by Caldera (now the SCO Group) under the BSD license. SCO would like the world to forget about that release now, but the Wayback Machine remembers.

So...SCO's code demonstration, the one that it put up to convince its resellers of its case, comes from a version of Unix which first came out in 1979. The code was publicly circulated in the 1980's, and explicitly released under the BSD license by [the company now known as] SCO at the beginning of 2002. SCO might well have a complaint that SGI did not properly give credit for the code it used. But there is no possible way the company can argue that this code's presence in Linux is an infringement of its copyrights.

And this, of course, is why SCO refuses to show the code that, it claims, is copied. These claims do not stand up to even a few hours' scrutiny on the net. SCO may yet have an interesting contract dispute with IBM, but, from what we have seen so far, its claims of direct copying of code are hollow.

(Many thanks to those who commented on an earlier LWN posting on this subject - those comments are the source for just about everything that appears in this article. Many thanks are due to LWN's readers; you have shown the best of what the community can do. Update: see also: this analysis of SCO's code by Bruce Perens.)

While I'm here, I have my own comments, that I really don't think that that chunk is copyrightable... It's far too direct an implementation of a simple algorithm to make it past copyright rules.

Well according to the extra LWN link, we can follow some of the malloc code to 1974 (soon will be 30 years old). See this link, where this code was contribued .

Well according to the extra LWN link, we can follow some of the malloc code to 1974 (soon will be 30 years old). See this link, where this code was contribued .

What should we make of the fact that the Unix Tree is located on the same site as a plagiarism detector?

What should we make of the fact that the Unix Tree is located on the same site as a plagiarism detector?

Now will the REAL copyright holder please stand up?

#
/*
* Copyright 1973 Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc
*/

struct map {
char *m_size;
char *m_addr;

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Interdata_v6/usr/s ys/malloc.c.html

A quick google of that code found this. Under a heading of 32VKern. Which states "32V was a port of Seventh Edition UNIX to the new VAX platform, which had been released by DEC in 1979."

What is it we are looking at here? Anyone know the history of this?

A quick google of that code found this. Under a heading of 32VKern. Which states "32V was a port of Seventh Edition UNIX to the new VAX platform, which had been released by DEC in 1979."

What is it we are looking at here? Anyone know the history of this?

I googled for the comments, and found that several early UNIXes contain this comment. The source code for a number of variants, clones, and whatnot, are available here Unfortunately, some trees are limited to man pages, which are merely of historical interest.

Except that the symbol-font comments being discussed in this thread (about rmfree) are not in Linux. The part that is identical comes from a textbook. And where in your ass did this 890,000 LoC number come from? URL please?

Unless both Linux and SCO legally copied the code from a BSD-licensed version of UNIX(tm). Or unless SCO stole the code from Linux. Until each party shows verifiable changelogs for the relevant sections, it's very much an open question.

The file is in a directory called 'dmr'. There's a parallel directory named 'ken'.

Ritchie has written (re. the nsys kernel) that So far as I can determine, this is the earliest version of the Unix kernel that currently exists in machine-readable form.

The file is in a directory called 'dmr'. There's a parallel directory named 'ken'.

Ritchie has written (re. the nsys kernel) that So far as I can determine, this is the earliest version of the Unix kernel that currently exists in machine-readable form.

Here's the earliest implementation people have found so far, from 1979 (before SCO was "born"):

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

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

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

Oh, how I hope the mainstream tech press "gets" this.

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

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

See Sys 7 1979 location

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html

Does this code come from:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html

Plus...

For version referencing, look here

Justin.

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html

Does this code come from:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html

Plus...

For version referencing, look here

Justin.

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html

Does this code come from:
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html

Plus...

For version referencing, look here

Justin.

Also:

This bit here
and this bit here
and this bit here
and this 2.4 bit here
and this v6 bit here
and this ? bit here
and this pdp 11 bit here
and this manpage bit here

rm

Also:

This bit here
and this bit here
and this bit here
and this 2.4 bit here
and this v6 bit here
and this ? bit here
and this pdp 11 bit here
and this manpage bit here

rm

Also:

This bit here
and this bit here
and this bit here
and this 2.4 bit here
and this v6 bit here
and this ? bit here
and this pdp 11 bit here
and this manpage bit here

rm

Basicly, the code they've showed goes as far back as 1992 from BSD 2.11, perhaps even further?

Looking through the UnixTree sources on Minnie, it goes back to 1973 from the Fifth edition Unix sources. It's in the malloc code.

So for SCO to claim this is interesting. Especially as it is out in the open for everyone to look at. And thanks to Bell labs - their copyright notice is dated 1973.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Basicly, the code they've showed goes as far back as 1992 from BSD 2.11, perhaps even further?

Looking through the UnixTree sources on Minnie, it goes back to 1973 from the Fifth edition Unix sources. It's in the malloc code.

So for SCO to claim this is interesting. Especially as it is out in the open for everyone to look at. And thanks to Bell labs - their copyright notice is dated 1973.

Cheers,

Toby Haynes

Their example can be traced back to 2.11BSD

It appears to be even older than that! Have a look at /usr/sys/malloc.c from Sixth Edition Unix ported to the Interdata 7/32 at the University of Wollongong, Australia during 1976-77. The datestamp on the file is 3 June 1979 - at worst the same year that SCO was formed, but more likely before that date.

SCO's intellectual property? I think not...

(Apologies if this is a repeat - I'm getting timeouts connecting to Slashdot.org)

good stuff. just gotta fix the links
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-00 0/imh1.jpg
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html

gotta love the slash code.

good stuff. just gotta fix the links
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-00 0/imh1.jpg
http://www.funet.fi/pub/Linux/PEOPLE/Linus/v2.4/pa tch-html/patch-2.4.19/linux-2.4.19_arch_ia64_sn_io _ate_utils.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/ken/mal loc.c.html

gotta love the slash code.

Clickable links

Heise News shows the code:

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:

Does this code come from: Here (V5) or Here (V7)?

Clickable links

Heise News shows the code:

The code seems to come from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, copyright by SGI:

Does this code come from: Here (V5) or Here (V7)?

In the heise.de screenshots from the SCO Forum: First screenshot, second screenshot.

A simple google search reveals that these comments are from malloc.c and/or ate_utils.c

The copyright at the tops says Silicon Graphics et al. WTF?

This is from a heise.de article .

Two slides show some code (1 2)
that may come from Fifth Edition UNIX.

1. The PDP-11 Unix Preservation Society
2. The PDP-10 software archive
3. SIMH Simulators for classic hardware

I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this.

Not only did they know, but they made a pretty big deal about it. "We're opening the traditional Unix Code!", they trumpeted, "We're going to use it to improve Linux!" That was the whole point of Caldera buying up SCO in the forst place.

Link, link, link, and the Slashdot article, which has the same links.

I talked with a former SCO employee (15 years - high rank) He told me they were well aware of the mixing of code. And that they (this is the previous regime) made the business decision to allow this.

Not only did they know, but they made a pretty big deal about it. "We're opening the traditional Unix Code!", they trumpeted, "We're going to use it to improve Linux!" That was the whole point of Caldera buying up SCO in the forst place.

Link, link, link, and the Slashdot article, which has the same links.

But V6 UNIX does...(can't get the damn thing to compile!)

-uso.

Dunno if it's relevant, or useful, but if it is (our could be), there's a claim that Caldera was willing to "release 32/V under an open source license." The Unix Heritage Society is also cited as being partly responsible for that.

Anyone know how to follow up on/verify the claim?

I think The Unix Heritage Society may have this source organized a little better without a click through license. Here's a list of mirrors including ftp, web, and rsync mirrors.

I think The Unix Heritage Society may have this source organized a little better without a click through license. Here's a list of mirrors including ftp, web, and rsync mirrors.

I think The Unix Heritage Society may have this source organized a little better without a click through license. Here's a list of mirrors including ftp, web, and rsync mirrors.

Or maybe you could look here for a whole list of mirrors containing the v6, v7, 2.2BSD 4BSD etc releases and sources.
All helpfully provided by the Unix Heritage Society

See http://shop.sco.com/caldera/ancient.html to see the license on their own web server. But that's not really interesting because they've released all of this stuff except for System III under a BSD-style license (including advertising clause) in the meantime, as you can see at http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf. Another interesting link is http://unixtools.sourceforge.net/, pointing to some System V userland code released by Caldera in 2001.

So, that brings up an obvious question:

Is the ancient software found at
http://www.tuhs.org/archive_sites.html legal?

What is the probability that SCO will rescind the public availability of it?

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/
http://public.planetmirror.com/pub/ancient-unix/

Go nuts, big boy. Let us know what you find.
(FWIW, the planetmirror link is being slow for me right now. Be patient, it's there.)

They're bad because they don't extend the C syntax, they just change it. Good macros extend the syntax, but keep the new syntax in same style as the original language. If you want to know to what your four macro's lead, look at the famous Bourne shell source code. A few simple definitions like yours in mac.h result in the horror of xec.c and cmd.c.

They're bad because they don't extend the C syntax, they just change it. Good macros extend the syntax, but keep the new syntax in same style as the original language. If you want to know to what your four macro's lead, look at the famous Bourne shell source code. A few simple definitions like yours in mac.h result in the horror of xec.c and cmd.c.