Slashdot Mirror
"Stolen" SCO Linux Code Snippets Leaked
stere0 writes "An article (in German) published on the German IT news site Heise includes two pictures (1, 2) of the "stolen" source code SCO claims to be theirs. Part of the first screenshot has been scrambled, the font has probably just been changed to Symbol; can anybody decipher it? I searched for the code snippets on Google. The code does indeed come from the kernel; the photographs show what seems to be lines 88-102 and 109-123 of /arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c from the 2.4 kernel tree. " Update: 08/19 16:39 GMT by M : LWN has a nice piece tracing the origins of the disputed code, and showing that SCO is simply lying.
The Gentoo People and an AC the previous SCO thread beat me to it. There's a very interesting discussion over at LWN, in which Bruce Perens points out that Caldera has put that code under a free licence.
Trollem mirabilem hanc subnotationis exigiutas non caperet
Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?
If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?
"Sometimes the truth is stupid." - Lawrence, creator of Prime Intellect
I don't know how accurate these pictures are, but they only show identical comments (except for 1 line), not actual code. They're going to have to do better than that. And yes, they converted the text to the symbol font. These guys astound me with their stupidity.
If the code between the two is exact, then why obfuscate the SCO portion?
That's not that many lines of code. I think you have to ask yourself if they could've just stumbled onto the same routine. Arguably, having the comments the same is a much more precarious scenario. However, I would argue that perhaps at the time SCO didn't really care, because I can't imagine a case where a programmer would be involved on a highly proprietary project, and would let source leak out without seeking some monetary compensation. If that is what happened, then clearly there is some fraud here. Otherwise, "oops, shouldn't have let people see the source."
stuff |
http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5065422.html
Neil Abraham, with SCO reseller Kerridge Computer, said SCO made the right decision to pursue IBM. "I think they've got a very firm case," he said, after looking at the code. "It's not just one line. It's huge chunks."
To sum up, this code is in 2.4.x but not 2.5.x, was also present in BSD which means its open source based on the case the BSD creators went through in the early 1990s. Have SCO really so poorly researched these examples that this is the best they can show us?
As all that they are demonstrating is a few lines of comments from their system v code where is the IP infringement? Comments may be part of the source, but am I wrong in assuming that comments are not included in the 'IP' concept that is being argued in SCO's case? If I copied just the notes in the margins of one of davinci's notebooks into the margins of my copy of 'stranger in a strange land 2: a parody by me' would that be infringement? Is SCO's claim really this weak, or are we really not going to see Code before IBM's lawyers drag it out of the SCO lawyers in an actual courtroom?
Fnord.sig
But I cannot find code resembling the mentioned offending code in linux-2.6.0-test3.
OK, I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe I'm not very good at grepping. Any rocket scientists around here?
There is nothing wrong with having the same comments.
Except, of course, that it's plagiarism?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Both snippets relate to the first function in that file - malloc(). It's a simple malloc implementation.
The second Heise picture is the body of the function, pretty much. There is now an SMP spinlock in there, and what appears to be some assertion on the size of the memory area (some kind of bigmem check?). Also, the for loop is initialised with a function, which is probably also something memory related, again possibly bigmem related.
So, it relates to the areas SCO said it did. I doubt very much they can claim the code was copied from SysV wholesale. I would be surprised they could even claim that the three changed lines from the ancient Unix are not obvious - e.g., for it to work in SMP you basically need a lock. Although, it would be surprising for the locking mechanism to be identical - so they perhaps have some point here. But, the majority of the function cannot be claimed as copied, surely....
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
Here or Here
Has anyone checked the linux CVS repository to see who added the code? If so, could you post your findings?
A quick search will show that the code presented as SCO code appears in the BSD kernel as mfree(). In fact, the Linux copy is much closer to the BSD code than the SCO code (especially in the comments), which would seem to imply the submitter to Linux copied the code from old BSD source and SCO copied and then obfuscated the same code.
At least in this example, it's pretty clear that the code presented is non-infringing.
It would be interesting to find out if this were the 80 lines of code all those analysts saw under NDA. It would say a lot not only about SCO's case but about the research abilities of technical analysts these days....
Of course isn't descrabling the greek phrase a direct violation of the DMCA?
CRAP! Now SCO can sue all the people that have printed, spoken, or otherwise communicated the obscured text!
This whole thing is really getting ridiculous. I wonder how long it will be before the laws that support this kind of nonsense are seriously reworked and/or simply gotten rid of.
RFC2119
I knew it would be leaked very soon, after the SCOforum or whatever it was called. I remember reading last night that when they were showing the code during the conference, a bunch of reporters took pictures. So that means pictures were not like restricted or anything.
Take a look at the comment of the "alledge" dodgy code: /* $Id: ate_utils.c,v 1.1 2002/02/28 17:31:25 marcelo Exp $
*
* This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public
* License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive
* for more details.
*
* Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved.
*/
Hmm... So maybe they ain't going after the right company after all?
Consensus is that it's the obfuscation technique they've used to hide bits of code they didn't want to show. Heh, real-life rot-0 encryption :o)
The comments that have been obscured have been translated by numerous people, and the comments don't appear in any public source known to Google. Therefore, it seems to be genuine proprietary Unix that it comes from.
I wonder if anyone else took pictures of the presentation - apparently, there was a lot of 'obscured' code in the samples they were showing. It would be quite interesting to know what code was obscured: so far, none of the obscured code is in the Linux kernel, which is odd given that it was 'copied line-by-line'. If it was indeed copied, I would expect more than just the stuff which is already public domain.
"Elmo knows where you live!" - The Simpsons
1992? In an early post, they found the code in a BSD newsgroup from 1984.
News Posting
ÕÕ
So this would make it not a free licence to use on 64 bit CPUs which is where they are claiming that the offending source comes from.
If this is the case it would probably mean that all of this Caldera code would be disallowed on 64 bit architecture, I hate to think that they have a point but....
Please someone tell me I am missing something obvious.
Anyone ever given serious thought that perhaps the SCO code was lifted from the Linux source? The SCO engineers obviously had the same level of access as everyone else in the public domain -- perhpas the case will come down to who can prove what was released when. .anacron
The actual source code in question isn't of primary importance at this point since the main SCO complaint is against IBM, and IBM's source code is in the Linux source tree because they donated it. Its public knowledge that IBM donated code to Linux, and SCO is just showing the code to selected neophytes for shock value. "SCO showed me source code from Linux and System V, and THEY WERE THE SAME! I'm shocked! IBM must be guilty".
SCO may eventually make other claims that all of Linux is their stolen property, but for the time being the focus should be on IBM, and in that case looking at the code does nothing but provide FUD fodder for clueless news outlets. The headlines will read "Industry analyst says lines of code are the same, SCO up 3 points".
The real issue here is this is a licensing dispute between two software companies, and it says nothing of value about the open source development process or Linux. Its in SCO's interest to bring these broader issues into the picture in order to put pressure on IBM to settle, but DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!
Even if they don't, I did. Many others here did. Thank you. Thank you very much.
I don't think SCO really knows the history of all of this code. Especially since they are fairly recent to it's ownership. Instead of being silly, they should be hiring guys like you who know this code's history and true origins (sometimes line by line - you guys amaze me) to do a bit of reality checking for them. Then again, I can't think of anyone who would want to work for Darl.
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
Oh, wait. IHBT haven't I? Blast!
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge"
- Charles Darwin
* Copyright (c) 1986 Regents of the University of California.
* All rights reserved. The Berkeley software License Agreement
* specifies the terms and conditions for redistribution.
*
* @(#)subr_rmap.c 1.2 (2.11BSD GTE) 12/24/92
*/
#include "param.h"
#include "systm.h"
#include "map.h"
#include "vm.h"
* Resource map handling routines.
*
* A resource map is an array of structures each of which describes a
* segment of the address space of an available resource. The segments
* are described by their base address and length, and sorted in address
* order. Each resource map has a fixed maximum number of segments
* allowed. Resources are allocated by taking part or all of one of the
* segments of the map.
*
* Returning of resources will require another segment if the returned
* resources are not adjacent in the address space to an existing segment.
* If the return of a segment would require a slot which is not available,
* then one of the resource map segments is discarded after a warning is
* printed.
*
* Returning of resources may also cause the map to collapse by coalescing
* two existing segments and the returned space into a single segment. In
* this case the resource map is made smaller by copying together to fill
* the resultant gap.
*
* N.B.: the current implementation uses a dense array and does not admit
* the value ``0'' as a legal address or size, since that is used as a
* delimiter.
*/
* Allocate 'size' units from the given map. Return the base of the
* allocated space. In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
*
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
memaddr
malloc(mp, size)
struct map *mp;
register size_t size;
{
register struct mapent *bp, *ep;
memaddr addr;
int retry;
if (!size)
panic("malloc: size = 0");
* Search for a piece of the resource map which has enough
* free space to accomodate the request.
*/
retry = 0;
Which means that SCO is using BSD/PDP11 code. This is also part of the code they called "Ancient Unix", because it was old and obsolete, and posted it on the web. Initially they wanted a $100 "license" fee to download the code, but the number of takers were so few that SCO opened it up to free access. We're they hoping someone might copy some of the code into the Linux kernel? Some might suggest that this was their plan all along, but a lot of the Sys V code would require a "glue", as former SCO employee Christoph Hellwig put it, in order for the SCO code to work in Linux. That kludge would not pass lkrnl checking.
Running with Linux for over 20 years!
Looks like someone made a mistake cutting and pasting to powerpoint.
The problem with your reasoning is that the comments weren't stolen from SCO and put into Linux. The comments existed way before SCO and Caldera and "new SCO" -- you'll find the same comments in BSD source from the early 80's, and published on the net. So if anyone stole the code, it wasn't any Linux developers, cause Linux didn't even exist back then.
Now will the REAL copyright holder please stand up?
Regards,
--
*Art
The second one is code is VERY old...
See here, and here.
How many textbook references do you think you can come up with?
So, can this be used to say SCO is tampering with the code they are using to make comparisons with? Technically the code they put up isn't in the kernel.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/030819/latu060_1.html
reads:
The SCO Group, Inc. (Nasdaq: SCOX - News), the owner of the UNIX(R) operating system, today announced the appointment of Gregory Blepp as vice president of SCOsource. Blepp will report to Chris Sontag, the senior vice president and general manager of SCOsource, the division of SCO tasked with protecting and licensing the company's UNIX intellectual property.
Blepp, a former VP of International Business at SuSE, brings to SCO a wealth of experience in marketing and business management from time at Network Associates and Computer Associates. Blepp's appointment is taking place at SCOForum in Las Vegas this week where he is being introduced to SCO partners and resellers.
"We're pleased to have Gregory Blepp join SCO to assist in our efforts around SCOsource in Europe," said Chris Sontag, senior vice president and GM, SCOsource. "We look forward to using Blepp's talents and expertise in assisting the company to properly license SCO's valuable UNIX intellectual property."
Is this world full of insane people ?
The copyright clearly says 1986 & University of California Berkeley. If SCO bought that code legitimately, then they would have to have changed that attribution, no? What it looks like to me is that SCO is claiming ownership of code snippets that they took out of the public domain in the first place!
I need to take my coon dawgs out to Utah. Something tells me when they get on the trail, it's going to head in a northwesterly direction toward Redmond...
"Obviously, I'm not an IBM computer any more than I'm an ashtray" (Bob Dylan)
Slashdot is an online machinery that is geared towards the benefit of the free software community. Throw some challenges to the free software community at slashdot and watch thousands of brilliant minds load-balanced working like a huge beowulf processing information online (a bit like SETI) to achieve the commonly understood goal; in this case to defend Linux.
If you want millions of man-hours with full motivation and some of the best skill to work for you for free, go to slashdot provided the task is enormously beneficial to the free software community. No corporation can spend any amount of capital or hire any number of people to match the productivity of geeks running on fuel that is pizza and beer to change the world.
Bravo.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
That's because SCOs code doesn't contain them. The file is copyright SGI and has to do with functionality SCOs code has never had. SCO is still in their fantasyland where new work that a Unix licensee adds to their own version of Unix is now magically SCO property.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Of course stealing comments is IP infringement.
Not according to the judge in the BSD case. He ruled that comments were not part of the source code.
The damages would likely be less if the value of the IP is less but it is out and out theft nonetheless.
Actually, as SCO refuses to disclose the alleged infringing code, the damages will be zero, as SCO is demonstrating that any infringing code is worthless. (If it wasn't worthless, SCO would do everything possible to get it removed from the kernel.)
SCO has made their point very well with the identical comments.
Considering that SCO hasn't made any alleged infringing code (with or without comments) publically available, there has been _NO_ point made at all.
Only the most blind advocate would suspect that somebody wrote new code in a black box and then stole comments that coincidentally happened to match correctly.
The fact that independant people who have signed NDAs, and are given two snippets of code, the origin of which they have no knowledge of, say "the comments are the same" really proves nothing...
There is stolen code in Linux.
Please provide proof of that statement. So far, there has been NO PROOF . At all. Until there is, it's a really large leap to say that SCO is 100% right.
A reasonable advocate would be working on a method to right now to find coders who have NEVER seen either the SCO code, the licensed IBM code or the stolen Linux code and begin a process of writing true black-box replacements.
No, a reasonable advocate would ask SCO for a detailed listing of all of the alleged infringing code. That's been done. SCO has refused.
It's impossible to 'write true black-box replacements' when nobody knows what to replace.
when the courts inevitably rule that the offending code cannot be used in ANY release
Why would a court rule that? SCO has not provided any proof, they continue to distribute any alleged infringing code themselves under the GPL.
Please take your troll somewhere else.
The patch where this was added seems to be here.
This code, indeed the whole module, is
not even in 2.4.22-rc2.
Interesting that HP is one of the companies SCO is so cozy with (the other one is sun), maybe HP even had the rights to distribute that code. Nevertheles the copyright is SGI. But what probably really happened was that HP submitted a whole bunch of code developed in the Trillian project in cooperation with others (Caldera for example) and the snippet was just part of a huge patch.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
It also shows that the first snippet is bogus. Linux's malloc, apparently allocates kernel memory (that's what it does in my 2.0.39 kernel source tree). Now, SVR4.0's rmalloc deals with resource map management which a completely different thing.
As for the second snippet, it is STREAMS code and is most likely based on BSD's mbuf code.
If you expected real evidence, this is not it.
Going on means going far, going far means returning. Tao te Ching
Perhaps the SCO discovered the situation is the OPPOSITE of what they are claiming - one day one of their programmers noticed that a bunch of GPL'd code had been imported at some point into their products. Too much to economically remove (how much does a commercial software developer have to pay programmers to remove and replace 'millions' of lines of code?).
If so, SCO would know that it was only a matter of time before someone noticed and THEY got in trouble for violation of their license to use GPL'd copyright-protected code.
Perhaps they figured they'd launch a pre-emptive strike by claiming that the code went the OTHER way, to give them time to e.g. cash in their stock and do what damage-control they could, before, in the end, they finally said "Well, okay, we did not know our own fiendish programmers would 'taint' our code like that, and let this be a warning to you all about the Evil, Evil GPL" (which of course would explain Microsoft's interest in assisting this charade).
The executives come out looking like poor victims of unscrupulous programmers and walk away with lots of stock money. SCO gets away with all of their lies (after all, the executives were just going with what THEY know, they 'didn't know' that the code came FROM Linux rather than TO. Ignorance IS bliss, even if it's pretended ignorance.) and SCO and MS get to jump up and down excitedly and say "See? See? I TOLD you the GPL was an evil Cancer that can sneak in and rape your Proprietary Code whenever it wants!" (Never mind that if this conspiracy theory is true, it's the fault of the proprietary developer for not paying attention to their own development process...)
Just a conspiracy theory. I don't have any idea if there's even a shred of truth to it, but it sounded interesting to me.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
I'd put it the other way 'round:
Out of almost a million lines of 'stolen' code, the best example that they can come up with is something in the public domain???
Between that and their laughable argument for why the GPL is invalid, I'm still expecting them to be quashed in court. In fact, my question is whether or not Boyes is going to get censured for filing a 'frivolous and vexatious' case.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Think about the RedHat suit, They are suing for damages to their business.
Lying at a public forum knowing this will boost your share price at the expense of the credibility of a competitor is Bad News.
Any jury (remember this is in Federal court not in the Mormon hinterland) will award damages.
Help fight continental drift.
This adds to the damages that RedHat can claim. Trick or not they are harming Redhat by stating something that is a lie.
Help fight continental drift.
No.. He's pointing out (as was done on the LKML that any use of code under the Caldera license requires that you include a (c) Caldera in the source. This file doens't do that. More importantly it was release PRIOR to Caldera relicensing the Ancient Unix code.
A lot of people want to think since it's in BSD it must be free. This just shows how dangerous a little knowledge can be. Not all BSD's are free. Originally you needed a Unix license to use the BSD code, and all of the BSD examples people keep quoting are from versions that required a Unix license. The only BSD code you can use and feel confident about comes from version 4.4 BSD-lite and beyond. Anything prior to that in not free. Whether or not Caldera's release of the Ancient Unix code makes these older versions of BSD "free" is questionable (and given Caldera/SCO's sue happy management...it's just stupid to use it anyway.) It's unfortunate that the old BSD's are so readily available. Too many people are geting confused. It all just drills home the fact that if you're accepting patches from someone else you need them to let you know exactly where they took material from if they're reusing code. They might believe the code they're using is free when in fact it isn't.
Not that I think this is a case of someone getting confused. If I had to guess I'd say that someone at SGI was just being lazy and grabbed the first version of malloc() and free() that they could find. There are better versions available (in the Linux kernel even) and they don't flow from the questionably licensed Unix sources.
This entire thing is old news though. The Kernel team were told about this code quite a while back and it was prompty removed. If I remember correctly ate_utils is in Kernel versions 2.4.19 to 2.4.21. It will not be in 2.4.22. It's also available in a seperate ia64 port package for kernel versions prior to 2.4.19 on kernel.org.
This is very very ancient Unix.
Very ancient Unix which Caldera (SCO) licensed to everyone under the BSD license as soon as they bought it, you mean. Besides, I would be surprised if this code was not in the public domain anyway given how old it is (predating Senator Disney) and its presence in numerous textbooks, etc. It's easy to see how it would have "made its way into Linux" as when Linux was being written people were using textbook examples and their knowlege thereof to make linux as UNIX-alike/POSIX-compliant as possible.
...Or perhaps it's new code written by an old fart who knows through long, bitter experience that there's no such thing as an optimizing compiler.
I have yet to witness a compiler that did anything even remotely clever with register usage, much less correctly identify where the performance hot-spots were. Hell, I still use a couple of coding idioms that puzzle most people because of bugs in ancient compilers, or just because I know how the compiler should be turning the code into assembly.
So yeah, I still use register from time to time.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
First-fit was analyzed by Knuth before you were born, and proved superior to best-fit. As for the coding style, the fragments in question were likely written by Ken himself. By calling it ``poor coding'' you are only displaying your ignorace.
What should we make of the fact that the Unix Tree is located on the same site as a plagiarism detector?
Show me something stolen.
SCO is aleging trade secret voilation. All this nonsense about stolen code being in the kernel is bullshit, they made no mention of that in their suit against IBM. They are simply implying that we have no right to use code that was freely released before they where ever suckered into buying the rights for it (and it's not even clear that they did actually buy the rights), and calling it "theft".
It's bullshit. It will not stand, and that's easy to see.
CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
In the first example only the comments match. The code in the left half is scrambled, but in the right half is not scrambled. This leads me to believe that the code itself is different since it makes no sense to leave one readable and one not readable if they intend to hide their 'IP' code if it is indeed the same.
In the second example, it is not comparative. Again, assuming they don't want to show the world their 'IP' then I doubt that code is theirs also.
They are full of shit, just keep shoveling more of it, and those that accept that shit aren't worth dealing with.
It's no wonder that HP pulled out of that shitfest. They'd just inherit the stink if they participated.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
What if the greek comments are a tracer to find out who leaked it?
The comment in the picture used the letter 'o' which isn't in greek, what if every person who looked at this got a slightly different obfuscation from English to Greek (e.g. using a 'w' instead of omega). This would allow SCO to trace the pictures back to the leak.
Obviously, this is not SCO code, a google check reveals that, what if it's a method for SCO to weed out those 'expert' witnesses whho side with IBM instead of them? If you don't leak this code, you get to see the good stuff...I'ts like porn :)
BB
The bad news is that we have code in Linux that's tracable back to AT&T, and it doesn't seem to be properly attributed.
The good news is that the easy solution to this is to simply properly attribute this code. (it was apparently released by SCO, under a BSD license, which requires attribution). A better solution might be to simply rewrite it from scratch.
Another good news/bad news is that this is very tight and highly functional code. As such it might be rather hard to rewrite without reproducing.. on the other hand, if that is the case, this might be an indication that this code is not properly copyrightable (IANAL, but my understanding is that functional, as opposed to expressive code is not considered copyrightable).
Better yet, can anybody get hold of Thompson and see if he remembers where he got this algorithm from?
That having been said, this is a very small chunck of code, and may have been further purloined from elsewhere. (anybody have a copy of "Knuth" floating around?)
(IANAL, but I sometimes get mistaken for one)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
According to the first picture, there is actually no copied "Code". The left side of the picture, the System V Code, contains a comment header followed by further comments obfuscated in the Symbol font. The right side, the linux code, has the same comments for the most part, followed by the malloc() code.
The problem is that there's no actual functional code copied in this example - only comments. If this is one of their strongest example of IP infringement by IBM, it's a sorry example. Is there any protection for copying comments?
Does not matter what any judge states anywhere. Any code deemed to be infringing will be rewritten and life will go on.
RH, SuSE, IBM can die but not Linux as such.
If you have contributed code to Linux kernel file a suit in small claims court. Little ant bites like this multiplied all over the world will bring SCO down faster than any major legal attack.
Help fight continental drift.
As much as I'd love to see SCO go down in flames over this issue, I think you're missing some important facts.
So, the code is old. That doesn't mean it's public domain. And who wrote it? According to what you cite, Dennis Ritchie. In 1973, Ritchie was working for Bell Labs, developing their Unix system. Yes, Bell Labs, part of AT&T. You know, SysV and all that? The copyrights to that code have subsequently been sold, and are currently held by... The SCO Group.
Whoops.
Prior to January 1, 1978, the copyright term was 28 years. At the end of the 28th year, the copyright period could be renewed for an optional period of 28 years, later extended to 47 years.
1973 is 30 years ago. If the copyright on the code has been properly maintained, that would mean that SCO owns it potentially until January of 2048. If not, the code passed into the public domain back in 2001.
Yes, perhaps it's been infringed on in other places (n.b., however, that Irix and BSD through 4.4 were licencees of the original code, and the the PDP-11 was Dennis Ritchie's development platform at Bell Labs), but this is copyright, not trademark law. Other infringements don't trigger a free-for-all.
This one will take some sorting out. It's certainly not as cut-and-dried as SCO is pretending it to be, but it's hardly clear that we (the Linux crowd) are as correct as we believe, either.
Part of IBM's countersuit is an indictment of SCO's use of press releases, stated exaggerations and falsehoods in interviews, and so forth. By not engaging in these tactics itself IBM is adding weight to its countersuit. Besides, IBM has all of us to beat the drums for it.
Darl stands in the court hallways happy to have initiated the best plan of his life, the destruction of Linux for pure profit. As he steps outside the courthouse, a snotty kid with a napster T-shirt stares at him and says ALL YOUR BASE ARE BELONG TO US.
Darl isnt sure the kid is American at all, speaking with that grammer. However in the months and years unfolding, the whole empire of his Bill Gates godfather sees their base slowly 'belong' to them, the evil them.
One million lines of code eh? The corporates came with the intent to enslave the UNIX gurus in the 80s. They stole the UNIX trademark and sold the code expensive, became fat with wealth. It simply bewilders them to see another flag rise with Linux and the geek flocks finding a new sense of purpose start shipbuilding the new vessel than will be bigger and better and will not sink like the Titanic AT&T UNIX. Some of the corporates finally become believers the way Romans did having seen Jesus come back to life in a different form. IBM pays tributes in the order of $1 billion dollars. Novell and others offer their full support. The gospel spreads.
But this only infuriates the great satan who sends SCO down for another showdown. Now the time has arrived. There is jubilation in the crowds. There is something in the air that tells of impending doom to the devils. The opensource developers may be unpaid fans coding all night in their bedrooms but revolutions of such magnitude are manufactured by the hard work of believers by the millions.
The CEO of the worlds biggest corporation can see the iceberg before him but he can do nothing but blow the horns. He will soon be on his knees admiring the resolve of his enemies.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
Please remember that the 5 Supreme Court Justices that voted to overturn the FL Supreme Court in Bush v. Gore were forced to write an opinion in that case that completely went against their entire careers of opinions supporting States Rights. Regardless of how you feel about either the issues in Bush v. Gore or States Rights, you have to admit the 5 Supreme Court Justices who supported the Bush position argued from the position of extreme federal interventionists in doing so. If five Supreme Court Justices went to those lengths already, completely new case law isn't that much of a stretch. Remember that the case which created corporate personhood created that concept out of whole cloth. That was completely new case law at the time, too. We have to recognize that it may not matter what the evidence in this case is. Linux and the "Open Source" movement is the greatest treat to the fiefdoms of the world's financial elite since Marx. These elitists have built their power base on owning everything that matters to the functioning of society. Open source cannot be owned by them, so therefore they must eliminate it. Always remember, follow the money and find out who benefits to find out the real answers you seek.
Don't expect to get your money back. They might have as well put "Ha HA, suckers!" in there.
From this article/interview:
McBride also poured cold water on the notion that Linux customers would receive refunds for licences bought should SCO lose its pending case to prove that its intellectual property (IP) is in Linux.
"We have not built in any refunds in our licensing model. The product is there and it's being used," he said.
Hate to keep adding posts but it has taken some time to trace this thing. Earliest match yet I found isn't perfect, but in context it's obvious that the exact match in V6 is just the result of some small editing of this earlier version.m alloc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/
This is 30 year old code people. Is it even still covered by copyright at all?
Anyone found earlier versions to check? I wouldn't be surprised if this bit didn't originate even earlier.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Let's not get confused with what is going on in the SCO situation. I had my IP lawyer friend explain to me exactly what is going on. I am not a lawyer, so take everything that I have written down with a grain of salt, and I may even have the issues confused, so don't sue me.
1) SCO is suing IBM for trade secret misappropriation. They are saying that IBM gave away some secrets and it caused them damages. This doesn't really affect Linux.
2) Copyright infringement. They say that Linux contains millions of lines of code that infringes SCO's copyright. This is the reason why they are charging Linux users a license. You can only infringe copyrights if you are given a license by the holder of the copyright. Code comments *are* copyright-able and can be considered trade secrets (but you cannot do both). You cannot patent code comments, but having infringing code copied into the Linux code could be considered copyright infringement. Although if it were only code comments, the claims for damages may be very negligible.
In order for anti-SCO-pro-Linux forces to win, they need to either:
1) prove that SCO doesn't own the copyright to what it says it owns. Right now, there is a presumption that SCO does own the copyright to what it says it owes, it is up to the anti-SCO forces to prove otherwise. I think all the comparisons to UNIX 7 code, if it really was public domain that preceded SCO's claims, could be a good strategy.
2) prove that SCO has waived their claims to copyright infringement. Some people are saying that SCO waived their rights by publishing their own version of Linux, but this is dubious, since they claim someone else infringed their copyrights and placed the code there.
To all Washington DC Slashdotters:
SCO must have disclosed code to the Library of Congress when it registered their copyright to the UNIX code. Presumably they registered infringed code otherwise it would be a pointless on their part. Something must be available there, and it will give a better clue as to what code they say has been infringed. Maybe someone can actually go down there, do some research and publish or point out what that code actually is.
"A moderation system where several such comments end up at "+5 insightful", thereby dilluting attention from the minority of +5 comments with good informtation is a vbery broken moderation system indeed. "
I'd change it to not cap the limit of moderation totals, certainly way higher than just "+5"...
And then for the filter, I'd provide a logrithmic scale to filter the messages.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
Even if I hadn't read back thru all the code snippets linked back to 1973, which makes it flamingly obvious SCO is full if it...
Speaking not as a coder but as an editor, it looks to me like the SCO code comment is the *newest*, because it contains a unique added line ("the swap unit is 512 bytes"). You don't remove informative comments, right? You add to them over time.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
Stock price is going up and SCO execs are selling stock, so someone out there *wants* SCO stock. WHO IN THE FUCK IS BUYING SCO STOCK?!?!? Is this another one of them tulip bulb/bigger idiot things?
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
well, if the code has remained unchanged since January of '73, then the same code is in versions 2, 3 and 4 of Unix.
AT&T gave the sources to Unix away free to academic institutions sometime around 1974.
Additionally, Caldera made some of the sources available under a BSD style license in Jan. 2002.
There is also the possibility that some of the "infringing" code comes from the from scratch UNIX rewrite by Tanenbaum (minix released in 1986) that was the basis of Linux. (legally, minix can be used as if it were public domain)
They might hold a copyright on that code. However, prior owners of that copyright gave that code away for free.
They are going to have a lot of fun trying to show that really ancient pieces of code like that didnt come from sources that were freely released by prior owners of the code.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
For whatever it's worth I did get decent grades myself, without sweating too much about it. But fortunately I never got any of my jobs based on either grades, or even the degree I have. I wouldn't base my hiring decision on either alone either. My thinking is that skilled and talented people generally do get fairly good grades, but that reverse direction isn't quite as linear.
Of course, the stereotypic image only covers some of high-grade-average people; there are some truly smart people who do get straight A s no matter what (have met couple). But there are enough of those whose main skill really is studying and getting grades (one way or the other), without matching technical skills, that I would not rely too much on GPA or related rankings.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
What I'm particularly wary of is the scads of ignorant comments along the lines of, "Look! The code is from before 1978 (or 1973)! SCO didn't even exist! It must not be theirs!" Intellectual property can be bought and sold. The logic of that statement is a sound as claming that there's no way I could possibly own my house because it was built before I was born.
Yes, they did. And they were selling the same code to institutions for $50,000 at the same time, so it certainly wasn't a release into public domain. Stop and think about it; this is copyright, not a trade secret. Just giving someone the source doesn't provide them license to do what they want. The analog would be Bloomsbury Publishing giving free copies of the newest Harry Potter book to schools. Would doing so cause them to surrender their copyright to that work?
well, that exact piece of code was also published in a book with no restrictions on its use. (publication of the book was approved by SCO, who held the copyright on it at the time)
It was also published in Kernighan and Ritchie's C programming book without restriction when AT&T owned the code.
Which is basically the point I was trying to make: untangling this whole mess is going to be very difficult. And, as much as I want SCO to be absolutely, 100% wrong across the board, I'm not so cocksure as to go off claiming that it's the case before some of this untangling has actually been pursued.
I dont think untangling the mess will be difficult. I think SCO proving a case will be insanely difficult. The reason we know so much about arbitrary lines of code is because there's tons of documentation and history for it all. It is very easy for this history to destroy SCO's claims and they are the ones who have to do the exhaustive research to prove those claims.
What I'm particularly wary of is the scads of ignorant comments along the lines of, "Look! The code is from before 1978 (or 1973)! SCO didn't even exist! It must not be theirs!" Intellectual property can be bought and sold. The logic of that statement is a sound as claming that there's no way I could possibly own my house because it was built before I was born.
i agree that the age of the code relative to SCO as a company has no bearing on the ownership of the code. I also agree that anyone making that statement is foolish.
It's hard to not be very optimistic about the SCO case, though. The only code sample they are claiming copyright infringement on that has made it to public scrutiny, they dont even have a copyright on. Their assertions relative to the case border on the absurd. The claims made by their legal representation are clearly contradicted by the text of the laws they are citing to make their claims. And they chose to target a company that spends more on break room coffee than SCO has in total assets.
It's hard not to be optimistic.
Darth --
Nil Mortifi, Sine Lucre
Face it. There is stolen code in Linux. How much and how severe the value of the theft is to be determined but that there was theft is almost certain.
This poster is right
Face it, that has yet to be proven.
You are wrong.
Proof: Kernel 2.0.36 has code where the BSD copyright was REMOVED and a GPL inserted. Violation of the copyright.
Proof: The ATA code taken from BSD.
Proof: RedHat 5.2. BSD print system. When did RedHat follow clause 4?
That's a good way of putting it. Okay, I'm a "tenured student" now.
Hmm. I remember reading a book by Richard Dawkins, where he mentions the life cycle of a sea squirt. Once the squirt navigates itself to a rocky outcropping and latches on, it stays there forever. Having no further use for its brain, the sea squirt dissolves and consumes it.
Dawkins described it as "kind of like being awarded tenure." But I digress.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
It strikes me that SCO would show their best example. This is it?!?!? Hoary old code from 1973 that's been all over the net for three decades and is released under a license that allows the Linux developers to use it with impunity? If this is their best example, they are bound to lose.
However, the Heise article says (my translation):
Supposedly, around 700 critical lines of code for SMP-technology drifted from Unix into Linux releases 2.4 and 2.5. In total, SCO's testers are supposed to have found over 800000 lines of duplicated program code - an example from SCO is shown in the picture right (enlarged view).
i.e. that was just one example, chosen by Heise. If even 1% of what SCO says is true, this could get very nasty for IBM and/or Linux in general. <flame suit on>
Maybe we'll one day see the FSF sue the arses of the any programmers who stole code and signed false copyright assignment forms. You can see the text of one of those here. It includes this:
The Assigner hereby represents and warrants that it is the sole copyright holder for the Work and that it has the right and power to enter into this contract. The Assigner hereby indemnify and hold harmless the Foundation, its officers, employees, and agents against any and all claims, actions or damages (including attorney's reasonable fees) asserted by or paid to any party on account of a breach or alleged breach of the foregoing warranty.
Be afraid, be very afraid...
Karma: Nonnegative
Taking something without permission is theft. If I write a piece of code that is original, peculiar to my situation, and you decide to just up and take it without permission, implied or otherwise, then you are guilty of theft.
Code is not necessarily always speech. It is an expression of ideas, but it can be copyrighted, which gives me ownership. It may not be right, it may not be ethical, but it is legal under the law, and that's all we've got to work with for now.
So, the answer is, change the law.
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
Your first example produce raw pseudo-machine code like:
The second will produce something like:
Even the 8-bit 6502 and Z-80 CPUs set flags based on the Z/NZ/Sign status of the incremented/decremented register, and had the requisite conditional branch operations.
If you think there is a performance difference between the different conditional branches, you need to check your manuals again.
Slightly newer CPUs such as PDP, VAX, and M68K had instructions which did an increment/decrement and a conditional jump on Z/NZ in a single opcode. The VAX even had a horribly inefficient instruction that would even let you specify a loop increment/decrement other than 1.
Heavily pipelined RISC code looks worse, but should be effectively performance-neutral as well.
(Yes the "sample" code is just a dredging up of old keywords from a decade or two ago. It's not "real" assembly for any CPU.)
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I'm a geek and usually I always passed by the slimist possible margin but often the professors would ask me questions if they got lost. I'd do poorly because #1 I was bored, #2 I found homework an utter waste of time, #3 I found tests an equal waste of time, and #4 I consider myself to busy learning and doing to time out to prove myself. The few courses that graded on real life knowledge I always scored 4.0 or higher (extra credit) but anything that expected you just to do the classwork for your grade I did horrible at. Also I tend to argue with the professors and books if I think they're wrong.. at times I had all out competitions with them.
Professionally, I still am much the same. Given difficult problems I can whip out good solutions quickly.. and forsee problems.. on the flip side I think people who just do the coursework are better at doing the boring grunt work. Instead of inventing new ways to do things more effeciently they just get done that needs done. Combined into teams these personalities can greatly help each other. I can force myself to do the grunt work but I think it's a waste of my talents.
At what price learning? At what cost wisdom? The price is a man's peace of mind, and the cost is his life.
I was looking at this website. it makes the point that the code in question if from the "SCO Ancient Unix" which has sense been released under the BSD liscence. I found an interesting, post that makes sense:
. com/offers/ancient001/
(Posted Aug 19, 2003 23:58 UTC (Tue) by Arker) (Post reply)
Call me a paranoid, but it has saved my life at least once.
I won't say there's no worry here. Please someone archive this stuff on your personal machine. And don't tell anyone it's there. Just keep it until it's needed, or this mess is over.
I'd just say I've done that myself, as I've done in past cases (I have an untouched copy of 2.4 source from Caldera for instance,) but it's almost 2am in my timezone and I've done enough for the day. I know there are thousands of geeks who haven't, and I know a lot of us have a little hard drive space to spare. Grab this stuff. If only one of us has it, it means nothing, but if a couple hundred have byte-identical copies with the same time and date and the same story on how it was obtained, we have a legal chain of evidence that can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. So please, just in case, do it now. Burn it to a CD or something, along with a description of exactly when and how you obtained it. You'll almost certainly be wasting a CD, but they're cheap, and if it does become an issue, you'll be glad you did.
I'm going to bed now, I leave it up to you.
the wayback machine he refurs to is at http://web.archive.org/web/20010124100000/www.sco