Slashdot Mirror
SCO: Code Proof Analyzed, Linus Interviewed
Arker writes "Bruce Perens has now obtained a copy of the entire slide show from which the recently scrutinized SCO-related Linux code excerpts came, and has analyzed the remainder of the 'evidence' they presented there. Their other code exhibit turns out to have been the venerable Berkeley Packet Filter(!), and their revised line-counts are consistent with simply adding together all the lines of code that have been contributed by Unix licensees." Also, Iphtashu Fitz writes "A new interview with Linus Torvalds has been posted on eWeek.com. In it he slams SCO over the recently leaked source code. Among other things, he points out in the interview that some of the code in question has been removed from the 2.6 kernel ['because developers complained about how "ugly" it was'] before SCO even started complaining."
With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.
You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.
An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here, and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here .
SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story.
I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security :-)
The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.
The BPF source code is here on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here
BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.
So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.
The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar mat
Torvalds: They are smoking crack.
Go not unto/. for advice, for you will be told both yea and nay (but have nothing to do with the question)
"Torvalds: They are smoking crack."
Awesome.
Analysis of SCO's Las Vegas Slide Show Bruce Perens, Perens LLC
.
:-)
With help from Linus Torvalds and the Open Source community.
You may re-publish this material. You may excerpt it, reformat it and translate it as necessary for your presentation. You may not edit it to deliberately misrepresent my opinion.
An SCO presentation shown in Las Vegas on August 18th alleged infringement by the Linux developers. The presentation, in Microsoft PowerPoint format is here [perens.com], and an conversion of the presentation that can be viewed using a web browser is here [perens.com]
SCO released the presentation to Bob McMillan, a reporter for IDG News Service, without any non-disclosure terms. Bob asked me to comment upon it. here's his story [infoworld.com].
I will start with SCO's demonstrations regarding "copied" software. It is likely that SCO would present the very best examples that they have of "copied" code in their slide show. But I was easily able to determine that of the two examples, one isn't SCO's property at all, and the other is used in Linux under a valid license. If this is the best SCO has to offer, they will lose.
Slide 15 shows purports to show "Obfuscated Copying" from Unix System V into Linux. SCO further obfuscated the code on this slide by switching it to a Greek font, but that was easily undone. It's entertaining that the SCO folks had no clue that the font-change could be so easily reversed. I'm glad they don't work on my computer security
The code shown in this slide implements the Berkeley Packet Filter, internet firewall software often abbreviated as "BPF". SCO doesn't own BPF. It was created at the Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory with funding from the U.S. Government, and is itself derived from an older version called "enet", developed by Stanford and Carnegie-Mellon Universities. BPF was first deployed on the 4.3 BSD system produced by the University of California at Berkeley. SCO later copied the software into Unix System V.
The BPF source code is here [lbl.gov] on the Lab's web site. A paper on its design, published in 1993, is here [lbl.gov]
BPF is under the BSD license. That license allowed SCO to legally copy the code into Unix System V in 1996, but since SCO doesn't own the code, they have no right to prevent others from using it.
So, in this case the SCO "pattern-recognition" team correctly deduced that the Linux and SCO implementations of BPF were similar. But I was able to determine the origin of BPF after a few minutes of web searches on google.com . Why couldn't a "pattern-recognition team" do the same? It's difficult to believe they simply didn't bother to check. It's also likely that SCO dropped attribution of the Lab's copyright from the System V copy of the BPF source code, or the team would have known.
The Linux version of BPF is not an obfuscation of the BPF code. It is a clean-room re-implementation of BPF by Jay Schulist of the Linux developers, sharing none of the original source code, but carefully following the documentation of the Lab's product. The System V and Linux BPF versions shown in slide 15 implement the same virtual machine instruction set, which is used to filter (allow, reject, change, or reroute) internet packets. And the documentation for that VM even specifies field names. Thus Schulist's and the Lab's implementations appear similar. Had Schulist chosen to directly use the Lab's code, it still would have been legal. But the version in Linux is entirely original to the Linux developers. There is no legal theory that would give SCO any claim upon it.
Slides 10 through 14 show memory allocation functions from Unix System V, and their correspondence to very similar material in Linux. Some of this material was deliberately obfuscated by SCO, by the use of a Greek font. I've switched that text back to a normal font.
These slides have several C syntax errors and would never compile. So, they don't quite represent any source code in Linux. But we've
Up untill now i thought this whole lawsuit had been a scam to pump the stock up and then sell it off at huge profit
i changed my mind
Darl and co are just fucking morons who have no clue about what they do and dont own
I can assure you those guys (at SCO) are at least snorting giant rails of coke, if not baking it up and smoking the rock... I think Linus is right on the money, their behavior is that of an addict.
--Drunk as in Beer
Having pondered the situation, Darl McBribe have reached the self-evident conclusion than most of the modern world can be said to be a derivative of UNIX. It's ours, he says. All of it! And you've got to pay.
The lawyers/pirates at SCO and Rambus etc... have a lot of money to invest in their ventures and no respect for anyone. The target is IBM now, next it will be MicroSoft (now a SCO licensee!).
I am suprised that MS did not see trough these guys. But then, neither did Intel when it came to Rambus. MS legal department seems to be high paid crap (IAAL, sue me). Well anyway, MS it will find itself open to a comparable attack to what IBM is under now in the near future. Good :-)
MS will propably be forced to show windows source at the trial which can be leaked and we get to see it. What a feast that case will be.
You can get your share of the loot too, just remember that the news always come as good-bad-good-bad series in these cases and the SCO stock goes up-down-up-down accordingly.
Okay, so it looks like this thing is even more bogus than people initially thought. I'm pissed off! What a ridiculous waste of money, effort, worry, energy and time. Screw civil action. Where's the SEC? Get these fsckers and their lawers off to jail. The whole thing has been one big SCAM. I hope lots of US criminal justice laws have been broken. Don't let them get away with it and with their sneaky stocks profits!!
Hey Darl, lemme have some of that crack you are smoking! I have had some *fantastic* crack, but the shit you've got must be top of the line, what with all the shit you're spouting and all.....
People who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.