Slashdot Mirror
IP Theft in the Linux Kernel
"They just took my code and filed off the copyright" said Søren. "This is clearest with the two header files hptraid.h and pdcraid.h. Compare these with FreeBSD's ata-raid.h, and just look at the similarities." And it's true that these two header files certainly look like a chopped up copy of the FreeBSD header, after a quick search-and-replace. "The reading of the RAID config from the disks is their own code, but is clearly "inspired" from our code," said Søren, "but that's encouraged by the license. It's the verbatim use of the other code without retaining the copyright that's the problem."
ata-raid.h, and the other files, are copyright Søren, and released under the three clause BSD license, which includes the restriction "Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice". So using these files, or significant portions of them, in your own code, without retaining the copyright information, as has happened here, is prohibited.
You may be thinking "This is only a couple of header files, what's the big deal?". As Søren says "The problem here is that the structures in the headers is the whole story. That info tells how you read the proprietary struct off the disks, and was reverse engineered and documented by me after a lot of effort." Søren's intellectual property is tied up in those files.
Right now, Søren is in discussions with the authors of the Linux ATA drivers (employed by RedHat) to ensure that his copyright notice is returned to these and other files, and to ensure that this situation does not recur. And it is hoped that an amicable solution can be reached.
The Gov'ment wuz rite! All yew Lienucks yewsers ahr theeves and tearerists! They shewd lock yew up aynd fergit abowt yew!
You're using her as bait, Master!
They should. But they haven't.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
And they won't. But you and I both know that you're not as smart as you wish you were, and for now that will have to be enough
Why was this guy looking into the Linux source code in the first place? Was he, say, stealing ideas?
Stop the flames. Of course he wasn't. What got lost in this story is one of the best aspects of open source programs: complete transparency. Microsoft may be using pieces of the Linux kernel inside its own programs and we'll never know. Ever.
If it was really a copy (we're talking about device drivers and it's very difficult to create original software to describe the same struct) then notice will be given that it was his software.
And another good aspect: this guys is a programmer that has created open source device drivers for FreeBSD. And he was looking into the Linux kernel sources. Probably looking for his own code (which would make him proud) or looking for the chance to help out fellow programmers or just to compare solutions and learn with it.
I'm sorry it happened but we should focus on what's good about this story:
Truth shall set you free.
in the Linux kernel source. I bet he was trying to steal code for FreeBSD!
Of course, the really funny thing about this matter is that M$ uses BSD code all over the place. It doesn't violate the license, but you'd never know. They might use GPL code, but you'd never know(without Black Magic(tm)). But I'd bet they'd never use GPL'd code, cause it is already implemented in BSD under a freer license and is better stuff anyhoo. I am putting the Drag Racing togs on as you type.
Comparing it to Windows will be a moot point, since El Dorado is going to have a 40% larger code base than XP.
Most probably cause he wanted to see how Linux got their HPT Raid support so quickly after FreeBSD released its code. Learn. Learn to Think. Learn to think before you speak.
This should show the community that Linux are not true developers and must rely on others works to implement drivers within their software and profit from others works.
FreeBSD is definately a better nix than what Redhat can ever produce. Just look at all the bugs/hacks within Linux vs FreeBSD. About 10 times more than FreeBSD mostly attributed to the so-called "borrowed" code.
*Headline News* censorship shuts down the Internet! More at 6PM!
This is unacceptable. Again, open source is all about sharing code so we don't have to keep reinventing the wheel, but as was said earlier, we MUST give due credit.
As much as I love Linux and prefer it to everything else, I think 2.4.10 should be boycotted. Nobody should download, use, or install 2.4.10 until a patched version is released that gives proper credit to the BSD people for the code it used. I'd even be willing to jump immediately to a 2.4.11 release, even if it is only minor issues.
The Linux kernel version 2.4.10 violates the very ideals that it was created and lives by. Ideals that even Microsoft of all people adhered to when using code from the community. It's a black mark on the kernel's history.
Why bother.
Soren could have just asked the Linux folks to add the notice, which they would probably have gladly done. BSD even gives commercial developers permission to distribute the code in binary only form, so why all this fuzz about Linux?
I suspect these serious accusations from the BSD folks are sour grapes: Linux is succeeding wildly while BSD is at best hanging on. So, even minor issues like these are used in attepts to tarnish the Linux image. My recommendation? Add a short notice to the Linux sources "portions of this file derived from ...". And my recommendation to the BSD folks: resolve such issues quietly. This kind of mud slinging only backfires and tarnishes your own reputation.
Linux just lost ALL of their brownie points in one fell swoop. I hope this puts RedHat out of business. You stinking stupid thieves!
Who knows what other code RedHat has plagiarized! Does it stop here?
We should spill the blood of these plagiarists!
/.
I switched to Red Hat from Slackware eons ago because the install was less tedious. Slack has since remedied the problem (Thanks Patrick!) and Red Hat's install has gotten all GUI and bloated, but it'd be a lot of work to switch all those servers back now... so I haven't.
However, if Red Hat's programmers can't give Soren whatever recognition he is due, I will consider that to be a valid reason to switch distros to whoever is willing to do the job right.
And I always PAY for my distro CDs. Because that's how we keep the distributors in business in my opinion. Since the CDs are not machine-restricted, it's not like the cost is unreasonable anyway.
So, Red Hat, what's your take? You guys have usually done right by me. Y'all gonna fix this?
--Charlie
(who HATES the BSD license, incidentally - Go GPL!)