Slashdot Mirror
Did SCO 'Borrow' Linux Code?
An Anonymous Reader writes "Apparently someone inside SCO has stated that SCO(actually Caldera) copied Linux code into System V. They did it to build what they now market as Linux Kernel Personality - the ability to run Linux software on their Unix. Now, the open source community(of course they don't mention who) is jumping on this, because they didn't return the changes to the OS community or give the community credit. Of course, SCO says it's a misunderstanding and, get this 'SCO also never used any of the Linux kernel code.'"
read Eric S. Raymond's OSI Position Paper on the SCO-vs.-IBM Complaint, I suggest to read it. It is very interesting and shows that we have nothing at all to worry about. Great job, ESR!
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
These limitations of liability are no different that those included in Sun's Solaris BCL, despite SCO's claim above the contrary:
All Sun's guaranteeing is that the media is good and that they'll replace your media if defective. All current Linux distributions that distribute on physical media will, of course, do the same. Sun is essentially saying that they'll give you your money back for the license fee paid if and only if a court determines that it's limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of all liability) are held to be invalid under the law. And the only reason they're saying that is so that their whole limitations of liability (read: disclaimer of liability) doesn't wholesale get tossed out on the basis that it violates contract law. (IANAL, but I did have a business law class
This is the same for Linux, except, in all cases regarding the licensing of the kernel, there is no license fee paid, hence, you get no money back. Duh.
My journal has hot
The SCO code in question was in the process of being written and could not yet have been copied into the Linux kernel unless someone on the Linux team had a time machine. I repeat, the article is about a SCO engineer encountering supposedly NEW SCO code that appeared to have been cribbed from already existing Linux code.
Please re-read the following quote from the article and evaluate how it fits with your interpretation of the article:
This is not about old SCO code finding its way into Linux, this is about supposedly new SCO code written to implement Linux kernel functions that looked suspiciously like code taken straight out of existing versions of Linux.
first the SCO engineers were not re-writing the SCO linux kernel they were simply writing stubs and wrappers for the SCO kernel to make an API (if you will) that looked like Linux on the outside and was actually calling SCO unix routines. they were NOT changing the SCO unix routines or making SCO kernel more linux like. they just wanted to allow Linux application to be able to execute in a Linux Personality Module layer that made SCO look like linux without having to change the SCO kernel
Yes, this is what the unnamed "source close to SCO" says he was doing -- re-implementing certain Linux kernel APIs in the UnixWare kernel. And you're correct that that's perfectly legal.
But what he's saying is that while he and the other programmers on the project were implementing the LKP, they discovered that portions of the UnixWare kernel were already very similar to portions of the Linux kernel -- to the point of having identical variable names (presumably non-trivial ones), etc. In other words, although the LKP project is perfectly legal, this anonymous source says that while working on it, he and the other programmers on the project uncovered evidence of prior code-copying by SCO.
TheFrood
If you say "I'll probably get modded down for this..." then I will mod you down.
Ernie Ball (a company that primarily makes music hardware/parts/guitar strings) was ordered to pay $90,000 to Microsoft within 120 days to be compliant (not enough licenses).
Besides the article you site supports these facts. The $90k was paid to Microsoft. It was afterward, when MS made EB out to be a poster child of licence abuse, that the EB Executives themselves decided to give their own IT department 120 days to become Windows-free.
Real good read, tho!
I'd like to see a timeline.
I found a November 2002 article talking about SCO, high end computing work that they had done with Compaq in the clustering arena and a brief touch on LKP.
I found a February 2001 article just about Linux and SCO integration and LKP.
I found a 2002 SCO Newsletter touting LKP.
I also found Simon Baldwin's resume who has a long history at SCO and who was the "Lead Kernel Engineer and Architect for the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP)" from February of 2000 to "present".
So the LKP stuff was going on quite some time ago. Before or after IBM allegedly put the offending into Linux? Inquiring minds want to know.
This is a common mistake people make when looknig at the situation.
If they distribute code derived form a GPL work, they aer not BOUND by the gpl; they are BOUND by copyright law, and the copyright holders who's rights are being violated can sue. The GPL is simply something they could cite to demonstrate they had permission to do what they do.
IT's not a GPL violation, it's code theft. There is a difference.
Yes, there is a clause in the GPL that says "By distributing siad work, you accept this license"... but that can only apply if you have READ the license in the first place. So it's dodgy.
There is no need to prove the legality of GPL. If it was invalid, or if someone doesn't want to agree with its terms (because no one has to accept GPL, as it is stated in the GPL itself -- you don't have to sign it, after all) then the only rules there are, are those imposed by the copyright law, which makes it illegal to distribute copyrighted works. If anyone wants to distribute GPL'ed software while saying that she doesn't agree with the GPL, or while questioning its legality, then all she has is a copyright law, which clearly states that what she's doing is illegal. I have posted a comment about it, but it has only Score:2, so obviously no one has read it. Basically, if SCO thinks GPL doesn't mean anything from the legal point of view, then, after rejecting the GPL, when they look at the Linux kernel, what they have is just a piece of software with "Copyright (C) 1991-2003 Linus & Co. All right reserved."
Karma: Positive (probably because of superiour intellect)
I'm sure as a comedian he would've loved you stealing his joke from "Relentless."
"Sufferin' succotash."
Especially to any one who worked as an engineer at SCO.
My suspicions were raised by the quote:
The source, who has seen both the Unix System V source code and the Linux source code and who assisted with a SCO project to bring the two kernels closer together, said that SCO "basically re-implemented the Linux kernel with functions available in the Unix kernel to build what is now known as the Linux Kernel Personality (LKP) in SCO Unix."
Unless they were a real newbie no engineer who worked at SCO would refer to SCO Unix because this would be internally confusing. SCO had two flavours of unix - SCO Openserver and Unixware.
LKP was really an enhancement on the basis of the lxrun application developed originally by Mike Davidson - I think Sun now doesn't some work with this - also I think it is open source. By implementing a system call trap handler you can implement a system call handling interface for our linux binaries. The LKP was really about making this system call handling and environment emulation more realistic and efficient. You don't 'necessarily' need to put parts of the linux kernel in your kernel to do this.
It is also quite suprising how much lxrun could actually do without all the LKP stuff.
I get the impression that the 'SCO source' didnt really understand how this emulation worked.
This statement is dodgy: Parts of linux were copied in to "The Unix System V tree".
Presumably this refers to OpenServer, it certainly doesn't refer to Unixware. This is inconsistent because UnixWare is OS on the LKP was implemented - and it certainly would not be refered to as Unix System V.
The facts seem a bit muddled to me. It might be that the engineer was telling truth but some facts got lost in translation - and just don't ring true to me. I left SCO before the LKP project was in full flight and I guess they would want to engineer some system calls into the kernel.
There was a lot of crap (usually ignorant or laughably incorrect) on slashdot about SCO before all of this stuff happened. But I do know that SCO had plenty of customers who were very happy with the products and that it was a great place to work.
And by the way, I and no one I've talked to since have seen any Unixware source in the Linux kernel.
Its a massive shame to me that a decent company was taken over by the bandits and shysters called Caldera. It beats me why they had change the company name back to 'SCO' before launching this pointless action.