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
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?
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
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
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!
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!
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
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 ?
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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