Slashdot Mirror
Settling SCOres
Israel Pattison writes "The Inquirer is reporting that someone in Germany is claiming to have viewed the SCO-alleged infringing Linux source code without having to sign a NDA. The person gives details about the code that was presented, but the translation-by-software is difficult to follow." The story also includes a link to a human translation; maybe some Slashdot reader can do better. Also in the news is a story about a kernel developer getting uppity with SCO, as well he might.
Incidents and accidents. Hints and allegations.
And yet we have NO NEW INFORMATION ABOUT ANYTHING PERTINENT.
I have been pwned because my
I can also view Linux source code without signing an NDA. It's open source, after all.
Hello.
lets sue a company that has 1.5 BILLION invested in Linux.....they will role over right away......
erm wait.....1.5 billion.....we are worth 200 million if we throw in the coffie pot...shit were dead.
I am the Alpha and the Omega-3
... and I think everyone is too. But, seeing as it's not going to go away that quickly, or at least until IBM puts their foot down ;), could we at least lighten up on the puns for the sake of our collective sanity?
And so we go, on with our lives
We know the truth, but prefer lies
Lies are simple, simple is bliss
Anyway, you've got to love a publication that tells you, "Here's a machine translation (containing lines like "In the concrete implementation there are not however so many differences that a proof of the same origin will become difficult, although reliably not possibly.") and, oh, there's also a human translation, too."
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
Now, I haven't seen the code, but the way it's described sounds to me like SCO may have grafted comments from the Linux source onto the SysV code. Comments being as unique and "fingerprinty" as they can be, this might have seemed like a good plan for making the code look like it came from SysV. The litmus test may be the origin of the comments, especially the jokes. I know if someone ripped off my joke, I'd for SURE let people know. . .
You are not the customer.
Could someone who knows the fellow ask him to select a version of Linux and indicate the actual filenames/line numbers where the code is alleged to be "the same?" The question here is "where did the code actually come from." To answer that, its first necessary to know precisely the code at issue.
From there, I would imagine that Linus has extensive records on where particular kernel submissions came from. That leads to affidavits to the effect that the code was an original work, or its replacement with code which in fact is an original work. Either of which solves the problem.
Moderating "-1, Disagree" is simple censorship. Have the guts to post your opinion.
rjamestaylor already posted the link under a previous story, and wiedmann was kind enough to translate it. Not exactly new, but worthy of discussion I suppose.
Being a native German speaker as well, and just having read the article in German and then English, I think the translation was done fairly well, and I doubt there is need for a better one.
Ash nazg durbatulûk, ash nazg gimbatul
ash nazg thrakatulûk, agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
Slashdot, now with hourly SCO updates.
- Adam L. Beberg - The Cosm Project - http://www.mithral.com/
Maybe this should be a slashdot poll:
SCO wrapup story titles should be:
- Puns
- Ambiguous and forgettable
- Unsuccessful and forgettable attempts to sumamrize all 19 links in four words
- Serial numbers
- Randomly and uniquiely generated for SCO stories on each pageoad based on a markov chain algorithm
- All titled "cowboyneal"
- still terrified still anonymousThe Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions
The Trillian Project : Proof of SCO's actions
(#36053 by NZheretic in response to Did SCO open Unix source code? (ZDNet).)
So, how did Linux become so capable of scaling beyond the heights of the
old UNIXs. More importantly, who helped put what where?
As with the marketing of cars and TVs, it is the vendor's high end
leading edge models which sells the standard models, from which most of
the sales and profit is made. For the enterprise server market today,
that high end is multi-headed 64bit SMP ( shared memory multiprocessor
) systems, never mind the fact that single 32bit processors provide more
than enough power to do most jobs. For all intensive purposes, it is the
ability of the core OS to scale on 64Bit SMP systems that defines
"enterprise scalability". Other enterprise feature are effectively just
addons, which in the case of Linux, have been freely contributed from
many vendors and developers.
Since version 2.0, Linux was more than just a 32bit x86 operating
system. With the insistence and assistance of John "Maddog" Hall, Linux
was already ported to the 64Bit Alpha processor, which delivered great
performance and stability. Just like the traditional AT&T UNIX source
base, the ownership of the Alpha chipset passed though many hands,
suffering the same fate of a thousand cutbacks. Even Alpha's "native"
OS, VMS, has been ported to Itanium by HP/Compaq.
Since 1997 Intel has been promoting the Itanium line as the inevitable
successor for every other server processor on the market. Despite the
early vaporware status, Intel has been very successful, at least in
terms of marketing. With the exception of it's mainframes systems, even
IBM ships Itanium systems that directly compete with their own Power
processors.
For what The SCO Group has to offer with SCO Unixware 7,the Itanium line
is the only 64Bit option. The problem for The SCO Group is that modern
Linux can compete so well in that same market, that the value of
Unixware is rapid deteriorating to a historical curiosity. I suspect
that The SCO Group ( at that time called Caldera ) executives were well
aware of this before they acquired the server part of Old SCO in August
2000, or they would have known, if they spoken to the right executives
and technical staff.
So how did Linux get scale on Itanium? The SCO Group would have you
believe it was all IBM's doing, which isn't as interesting as the real
story. The web of history weaves to encircle and entangle a much more
diverse group of conspirators, including many of The SCO Group, Caldera
and old SCO own former executives and other employees.
In October 1998, IBM, Old SCO and Sequent teamed up to
collectively develop parts of Unixware and AIX into scalable 64bit ready
ports for IBM's Power processors and Intel's AI64, or Itanium, under the
banner of Project Monterey. But by then, it was already too late.
In February 1998, well before even the first prototype IA-64 chips were
available, a skunkworks team at HP, with some assistance from Intel,
began the work toward porting Linux to IA-64. By October 1998,around the
same time that IBM, Old SCO and Sequent had finished negotiations, HP
had completed the build toolchain. By January 1999, the Linux kernel was
booting on an IA-64 processor simulator, months before the actual
Itanium processor was available. In March 1999, at Intel, Linux was
booting on the actual Intel Itanium processor. In April 1999, CERN
joined the projects for the port of the Gnu C library and VA Linux
Systems joined the project and rapidly improved the stability and
performance.
In May 1999, the Trillian Project is foundered and HP, VA Linux and
Intel collectively provided their source patches to the Linux kernel for
the Itanium port under the GPL license.
A bootable kernel alone however does not make an OS make. HP supplied
I'm pretty sure that Linus "wrote" this; this is kernel stuff, right?
someone in Germany is claiming to have viewed the SCO-alleged infringing Linux source code without having to sign a NDA
Give yourself a few days to read the whole kernel source code and have your ass sued by SCO for having read their source code without NDA.
"A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
"It lacks farfegnugen"
Table-ized A.I.
More like SCOviet russia. After all, what better place for SCO to be than moSCOw?
But it still doesn't mention which part of the linux code is copied (either way). I would like to know... give me some function/variable names. Then we could at least estimate the date the code was submitted and incorporated. Furthermore we could know which functional parts of the linux kernel was copied.
Why bother trying to prove that the code was acquired "legally" when they have not even shown publicly what the actual code is?
Unless SCO patented the methodology, then coding a replacement and having seen SCO's original code does not mean you can't make an equivalent original. SCO has to prove that the person didn't create an original. Also, people are not computers. They will not remember lines and lines of code with any precision, so the entire argument that they can't create a functional original is BS. If the SCO code was patented, all they need do is use a different methodology, unless it was something generic (generic "only solutions" or "common solutions" or "obvious solutions" are not patentable, as there's nothing unique about them).
Who cares if IBM is in violation of SCO's license? That has nothing to do with IBM contributing to FOSS.
social sciences can never use experience to verify their statemen
Is it just me or is this starting to look like the nerd version of the O.J. trial?
(No lame glove references please.)
"GNU's not Unix....it's Linux" / Kami "kokamomi" Petersen
I am not a lawyer (get this out the way first), but my opinion of some highly relevant issues:
According to McBride's public statements, SCO view all the *nix variants as derivatives of their stuff. If anybody is interested enough to discuss this, but doesn't remember, I'll locate the news links and post them.
However as far as IBM is concerned: IBM are fully authorized in their contract to create derivatives of *nix - use any methods in the source - sublicense it as they choose - and what's more the contract says IBM own any derivative products that they create. The only proviso appears to be IBM should not copy code or whatever associated paperwork came with it (copying ideas and methods is explicitly allowed).
Furthermore, it actually explicitly says this on SCO's own web site, and as part of SCO's evidence. Go, for example, to top of page 2: http://www.sco.com/scosource/ExhibitC.qxd.pdf
So now, I think, we have yet another problem with SCO's case (aside from GPL issue, ATT v BSD issue, whether code was copied from or to SCO, whether SCO have the copyrights, whether anything in *nix is a trade secret given it's history, BSD contamination in *nix history undermining any copyright claim to entire *nix source, etc): Namely IBM are allowed to do more or less whatever they like in and with derivative UNIX products, explicitly stated in the contracts with ATT (which SCO inherited).
Are Linux terrorists and hippies worse than Windows terrorists and hippies? I don't get it.
Microsoft co-owns a cable TV news channel. Linux.org doesn't. Microsoft reserves the right to misrepresent anything related to Linux on MSNBC so far as it doesn't cross the line of slander.
Will I retire or break 10K?
-Code was 46 pairs of printouts, no dates associated.
-2 sections of code looked very similar
-The rest was mostly copied comments, including jokes that were copied.
-Observer found it curious that the source code near the copied comments was completely different.
Did I read in that English translation that all date and time info was removed from the code that was shown, and that the Linux code presented was taken from MAILING LIST POSTINGS? Assumng this isn't some hoax, I smell the very, very pungant odor of bullshit...
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
The SCOpe of your SCOuring SCOffs at our punny diSCOurse, but don't diSCOunt the SCOrnful diSCOntent eSCOrting these SCOundrels' miSCOnduct. The puns are diSCOmforting, but they are verbal SCOwls that underSCOre the disSCOuragement felt as we diSCOver the latest SCOop regarding their miSCOnstruals of truth. Putting this SCOurge under the microSCOpe may SCOrch their miSCOnceptions before they can abSCOnd from this fiaSCO without settling the SCOre. Vile SCOrpions!
The fact that SCO presented this without dates or source control log entries strongly suggests that either they either are completely naive about how to establish that code was copied, or that they simply don't have a case and are just playing a huge bluff.
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation. His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code". In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
This may be one of the ways to put chinks in SCOs armor. Get other Linux kernel developers to compare what they've written against corresponding sections of OpenLinux. Then note SCO's violations.
It only takes one unusual comment to be identical and the game is up.
The code now, or as submitted, is unimportant. The fact that the work derived from (else why would the original and seemingly unique comments be there) copyright material is enough.
I haven't seen the SCO code, nor do I care to. But, I have first hand seen a similar case that was won based on the comments in the code.
From the case; "It is the resemblances in inessentials, the small, redundant, even mistaken elements of the copyright work which carry the greatest weight. This is because they are the least likely to have been the result of independent design."
And; "Trivial items may well provide the most eloquent testimony"
And finally; "Both suites of programs
contained the same spelling mistakes in the comment lines and the same redundant code. The
judge did not accept the argument that this was due to programming style."
As the author of the article stated himself:
:)
As long as there are no original sources available where nothing is altered or deleted - especially the dates - and as long as SCO does not give any evidence that the sources under scrutiny are unaltered, all there allegations are simply said bullshit.
I think at least in Germany they can be sued for misuse of the court and up to now they can be sued for damaging IBM and everybody who sells and supports LINUX.
Well - let us sue them into oblivion
CU
1) We have no function names, no file names, not even a precise description of what code or comments. Now, true, this guy says he was shown PAGES of code - NOT files, but Xerox copies - and that most of the Linux code was from Linux mailing list posts. Still, he can't write down (or remember, if he was not allowed to write notes) function names or specific comments? Something fishy, there.
2) He says some of the comments are identical but the code next to them ISN'T. This makes no sense unless SCO manipulated the comments. But why would SCO place identical comments next to non-identical code? Isn't that an OBVIOUS fake? Why would SCO do an OBVIOUS fake? Are they that stupid? Or was it an attempt to show fake code to analysts that will NOT be shown to the court - in other words, a publicity stunt?
3) This story doesn't resolve anything or even contribute to anything given its omissions and ambiguity.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Our primary means of revenue is licensing of our source code. The jokes are the only significant value of this source. As events of the last few months have shown, ridicule and laughter are what makes our company great. By shamefully incorporating the jokes into an open source product, IBM has removed the only rational reason why anyone would pay to license our IP. Our copying of large sections of the Linux code into our own products is irrelevent to the discussion because we deliberately removed any good jokes in the process.
Once I'd found the real author of the code, I'd notify him, and watch the fun as he tries to sign the NDA. It'd get real entertaining real fast.
Litigious bastards
Frankly OSS is the only point of sanity and some morality left to the industry (I can't quite believe that the IBM of the 70s and 80s is suddenly transposed itself to that touchstone).
They haven't, not one bit. It is just business for IBM. They made a business decision that making the OS a commodity would be good for them. They see it as a way to knock Microsoft off their revenue base and to similarly make the hundreds of millions if not billions invested in Solaris, HPUX, IRIX and even SCO as moot. Yeah, it hurts them in short run with the waste of their AIX development dollars, but AIX was always an also-ran in the unix space and IBM is a hardware and services company and Linux is the perfect complement to that business model.
But don't ever forget that IBM is first and foremost a ruthless, amoral business just as it has always been, Microsoft is, HP has become and Sun wants to be. If management decided that fighting linux instead of supporting it would benefit their corporate coffers, you can bet that IBM would turn on OSS in an instant.
When information is power, privacy is freedom.
I just use the old traditional car analogy when I try to explain it to people.
Here 'tis:
I make alternators, you make engines, leroy over there makes wheels, bubba makes frames and bodies and etc. Now we could all sit around and try to sell this stuff to each other with all sorts of schemes and deals and middlemen and whatnot, or we could all just cooperate completely and share a part with each other and all of us wind up with a pretty cool and snazzy complete car at very little cost to anyone. Then we *all* have our own good car to go drive to "real work" in. And whenever I build a newer better alternator I chip it in, and so does the engine guy, and so on. We do this forever, we are always driving a new car for real reasonable and not much hassle. And once in awhile someone totally new joins our car co-op group, like the new guy this week we added has a really nice car sound system we all get to add to our cars. Cool beans. Fat city.
a 199 million dollar coffeepot?
KFG
I received the following in my Inbox this morning:
THIS IS ONLY A WORKING TRANSLATION; I DO NOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY AS TO POSSIBLE MISTAKES OR ERRORS. I WILL NOT TAKE ANY RESPONSIBILITY CONCERNING THE CONTENT OF THE ORIGINAL TEXT.
Today, I had the possibility to have a look at the incriminating code passages.
Due to a mistake on the part of the representing lawyer's office, my colleague and I - as opposed to the 7 other representatives that were allowed to look at things today - did not have to sign a Non Disclosure Agreement. This was in full contrast to the examiners of Microsoft corp., who apparently had to maintain silence even towards their own superiors and may only give notice to the internal company audit department.
Now for the code itself:
Under the supervision of a notary public, 46 pages were shown, each containing, by one half, code from Linux (for the most part, print-outs of posts taken directly from the Linux-Kernel-Mailing List) and, by the other half, listings of SCO. Whether these are indeed sources of SysV is not comprehensible that way, as they are taken out of their context. Another interesting thing is that all date and time details have been removed from both, even from the comments. The comments themselves are really identical here and there, even some jokes are the same on both sides. It is, however, conspicuous that in the places that correspond most, the source code that can be found in front of the comments is quite dissimilar after all. The fundamental construction of the queried functions is similar; however, the concrete implementation is quite different. Variables and names of functions are different, loops are structured differently, conditions work via chain queries (?) (Kettenabfrage) or bit patterns (?) (Bitmuster). All in all, only one thing can be said for certain: The functions offered by the respective code passages are often equal, which, however, was to be expected from the start anyway.
In the concrete implementation, there are, however, so many differences, that a proof of the origin being the same will be difficult, even though certainly not impossible.
The crunch, however, is a function of the scheduler, which is, over a length of about 60 lines, indeed identical except for slight differences. In this section, there is also a whole lot of corresponding comments.
Comparable similarity can only be found in one routine of the memory management, which is, however, only in the Linux version accompanied by comments.
Whether a competent proof can be made out of these two correspondences can only be estimated with certainty by a lawyer. I consider the vague similarities in other passages to be insufficient, as the same standards were the basis for both and therefore, a certain correspondence is to be expected.
Concerning the same comments to different source passages, I can see no rhyme or reason in it. This would in any case have to be investigated in again meticulously, in particular with the date and time details provided. Because only with these could a breach of copyright be proved at all.
Concerning the discussion about the part of Linux sold under the GPL by SCO/Caldera, it must be stated that up to the present, no court has had to decide on the legal validity of the GPL. Should this, however, be ascertained, which is not certain, SCO can use only those parts of Linux by way of comparison that were not published by SCO and in the development or co-development SCO did not take part. I consider this, too, a difficulty in the proceedings to come.
As the original, unpatched Linux-sources were not touched but only modifications that had been inserted by different distributors, it has to be clarified in any case whether these might have rights to the queried passages, be it directly or indirectly, e.g. through company mergers, take-overs, "all-inclusive"-deals etc. The chances for proceedings to open are not especially good, as in most comparable
-- @rjamestaylor on Ello
I found the second link (re: kernel developer getting uppity with SCO) to be much more interesting. He claims to be the author (or significant modifier) of code which SCO purports to be in violation.
This isn't the case. SCO hasn't even publically stated which parts of Linux are supposedly in violation, they have just stated that there's some violation(s) in the kernel. The developer in the second link doesn't claim to have authored code that SCO has claimed to be copied; he claims to be a co-author of the Linux kernel, which SCO is still distributing.
His remark in short is "The violation is yours, 'cause I wrote the code".
No, his remark is: "If you won't release every part of this binary I am coauthor of under the GPL, then you are redistributing my code without adhering to my license on it, and you are violating my copyright." This doesn't necessarily even mean that SCO's plagarism claims are false, only that if they pursue those claims then they have themselves been unknowingly violating Linux developers' copyrights for years and are knowingly doing so at this minute.
In a challenge to SCO, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they remove the paticular code sections from their list of copyright violations.
No, he's threatening to sue SCO unless they "retroactively" make their distribution of Linux compatible with the GPL (which, if any kernel code has been copied from SCO, would require SCO to license it under the GPL).
...that some of SCO's allegations are certainly wrong in detail, and that certain specific code sections (like the scheduler) are under fire.
Now if someone can recall some of the strings that they saw and grep the kernel for them we can probably have a little chapter-and-verse from which to answer some of SCO's whining directly.
We have made progress against this stupidity, even if it's not as rapid or dramatic as you'd hoped. It'll be interesting to see how the threat of a countersuit impacts SCO's shares when the less technical sites pick it up.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
you must feel very manly. you clearly have the bigger dict.
Many of the comments in the Linux kernel are from the posix specification which is available on the internet. http://www.opengroup.org/onlinepubs/007904975/
It makes a lot of sense for a developer to copy the specification as comments and fill it up with implementation details. That's the way I would do it! That would explain why comments are the same and code is different.
"Fighting terrorists with millitary might is like killing a mosquitor on your Dad's forehead with a rifle."
16-Jun-2003 11:05 // Took Mary Jane to the vet for her annual check-up. I hope the doc can't tell.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.