Slashdot Mirror
SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code
mrgoatCEO writes "It seems SGI has finished up their test comparing SCO's Unix System V code and that of the Linux Kernel, according to ITWorld. SGI found that any similarities between the systems (amounting to only about 200 lines of code) have been removed in Linux Kernel 2.4.22, and added that the similarities were 'trivial in amount.'" This follows moves by SCO to terminate SGI's Unix license.
I can't believe that anyone would think that ANY modern system would actually benefit from Unix System V code. Virtually everything can be done better, faster, cheaper, smaller, etc now than in the days that System V was written.
I wonder if SCO has a "printk" function. Maybe that's where all this crap comes up. doh.
"Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
Yeah but some of the stuff that came up they considered trivial and didn't change anything. Even if they are "trivial", they still came up somehow in a match, and a look should be taken at those sources of code in a more open way. Regardless of how trivial or not these findings are, ANY amount of secrecy and undisclosure is simply not a GoodThing. SGI also just commited changes for THIER code, while they had an opportunity to compare the entire codebase.
"To lead the people, you must walk behind them"
"sgi" Changelog information from the 2.4.22 kernel.
jbarnes@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: ACPI fix for no PCI
jh@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: SGI SN update
o ia64: SN2 update 030528
o ia64: SN2 update 030630
kaos@sgi.com[helgaas]:
o ia64: fix scratch-regs handling in kernel unwinder
o ia64: unwind.c - allow unw_access_gr(r0)
o ia64: Trivial stack-size correction in mca.c
o ia64: mca rendezvous fix
o ia64: Hold modlist_lock while searching exception tables
o ia64: Handle SAL rejection of MCA rendezvous timeout value
> So SCO could still potentially be right in saying that IBM submitted
> a lot of Unix code into Linux.
That is what SCOs entire case is built upon - their claim that any code put into any form Unix by IBM, SGI, etc, automatically became SCOs property (as far as I know).
Even though the licence clearly never stated this stuff as far as I am aware. So all the claims by SCO are in bad faith and not valid.
There is no case for SCO. IBM, etc, are only taking the time to make sure that there are no holes left. I think that SCO will get owned big time when the case actually hits the court. I don't think IBM will do any last minute "agreement" with SCO either.
As I understood it, SGI said they examined all their contributions closely to be sure they didn't accidently put SysV code in Linux. They also did a general check for other problems, but did not put forth the effort to be sure there are no non-SGI violations. If there are SysV copyright violations they are difficult to find though. That implys any violations are just potential because it can be argued the code is dissimilear enough that either it was independantly written and similear on good enginnering grounds, or not similear enough to count as a violation.
Bruce
Bruce Perens.
This is profoundly wrong. Copyright law does not allow you to copy a few pages out of a book. It allows you to make Fair Use of copyrighted material. It may be fair use for you to copy an entire book. It may not be fair use for you to copy a single paragraph. There is no "use X many free" formula. People get in trouble believing this.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
"Monninkhof tried to reason with SCO, but didn't succeed. At first SCO agreed to talk, so Monninkhof flew to SCO's headquarters in Utah, but learned that there was no-one to meet him and that visitors were not allowed in the building. Security then escorted Monninkhof off the premises. He was also given a letter indicating that his company was no longer welcome at SCO Forum."
If there was any doubt about the kind of people running SCO these days, this should clinch it. Damn cold..
For the lazy, since June 20 it looks like they have sold shares for a total amount of $2,747,819
Morphing Software
I was planning on compiling a 2.4.22 kernel myself tonight (actually my first time compiling a new kernel...) After reading that it is supposedly SCO-free, I only want to do it more.
Originally SCO stood for "Santa Cruz Operation".
Eventually, SCO sold off its OS division, the one that made SCO UNIX and coincidentally happened at the time to own the original Unix copyrights (having bought them from Novell in 1995), to Caldera, a linux company. The remainder of what used to be SCO, the part Caldera didn't buy, is still operating under the name Tarantella.
Caldera, after buying SCO UNIX, changed its name to "The SCO Group." SCO doesn't stand for anything here. It's just "The SCO Group". Shortly after this the company's co-founder, Ransom Love, was replaced as CEO by Darl McBride, and SCO began to serve the Wyrm.
"The SCO Group" is owned by and has since Caldera's inception basically been under the auspices of an umbrella corporation called the Canopy Group. It has been repeatedly theorized that somewhere about the time McBride came in, the Canopy Group gave up on ever making any money ever again on Caldera's projects. Now, goes the theory, the Canopy Group is using the SCO group for no purpose other than as a front/shell company, so that the Canopy Group can engage in illegal but profitable enterprises such as slander, barratry, and fraud, and then when all hell breaks loose as a result and the countersuits start rolling in, "the SCO Group" gets all the blame and takes all the damage and quietly goes bankrupt, and the Canopy Group walks away scot-free.
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Right to a speedy trial only applies to criminal cases. This is a civil case.
Jack Valenti and Orrin Hatch will be first up against the wall when the revolution comes.
In Darl's contract, it states that he is in for a big payday if there are four consecutive quarters of profitability.
/.ers would have you believe.
Not really. If you want the skinny on the stock options and incentives in Darl's contract, go read this.
In short -- Darl got 100,000 options after one year with SCO (which should have been on or about June 27, 2003). There are another 300,000 options that are vesting at a rate of 8333/month for 3 years. If SCO has 4 profitable quarters then Darl gets another 50,000 shared immediately, followed by 150,000 a year later.
By those numbers, he'd be well advised to keep the company around for at least a year after securing the 4 quarter deal -- he'd nearly double the shares.
On top of that, executives can't just call their broker and issue a sell order. Any insider must register for the purchase or sale of shares with the SEC. If you look at the execs of any large, successful company you'll see many have share sale orders out months or years in advance -- because they have to rebalance their portfolios.
I'm not saying this isn't pump 'n' dump or a variation thereof, but it's not as simple as some of the more ignorant
We're talking SCO here; so what's your point?
On a more serious note, a poster to GROKLAW ran across this SCO product brochure from 2002 which points out that the very features that SCO says infringe on their intellectual property (XFS, JFS, NUMA, etc.) are selling points in SCO's version of Linux. This makes it kind of hard for SCO to claim that they didn't know these features had been included in Linux and their release of the code under the GPL doesn't constitute GPLing the code.
I could be wrong but this only leaves SCO with three choices:
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
First, where did you get a copy of Linux 9? That's some pretty interesting insider work you got going and I'm sure even Linus would be surprised that you got a copy of that.
First of all, Linux is open source and SCO is not. So how can Linus developers see SCO's code besides using backing tools like decompilers?
Glad to see you've been paying attention.
IBM and SGI have access to SCO's code. What SCO's allegations are is that IBM (and if/when they sue SGI they'll say them too) has put SCO's code into linux. So there's a quite plausible way for the code to get into the kernel. Whether or not this involves malicious intent, who knows. Only IBM can really know it and if they are at fault, then so be it. However, SGI, who also has access to SCO's code, has stated that these allegations are shaky at best, and given SCO's consistent counterproductivity in getting this whole issue resolved already and their contradicting arguments and sound bytes upon sound bytes saying they never made the previous sound bytes (Darl McBride is doing an excellent job at munching on his foot) it looks like if they ever did have a leg to stand on, they've since lost it and can bloody well cope.
Karma: Non-Heinous
SGI's letter to the Linux community
Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
I really can't believe the spin that is being put on this story. Essentially the story boils down to this: "we have looked at the *kernal* and found about 200 lines of offending code which have since been removed" - read - "we were sued for releasing copywrighted code under the gpl. We found 200 code lines we'll admit to and we're NOT TALKING ABOUT THE REST. We did it, we admit it, but we're not gonna admit to ALL of it until we hit court."
Can anyone see a big hook trolling for an out-of-court settlement? This a big neon "we're guilty as charged, can we negotiate" sign.
This does nothing but help SCO in the long run.
It doesn't matter what you wrap your emotions around, Reality is a brick wall specifically designed to scramble eggs
If insider sales at SCO are predicting something, what does it mean that the insider sales of LNUX and RHAT are an order of magnitude larger?
... and make another quick buck by shorting it.
SCO can't currently be shorted (I know, I checked).
Shorting is accomplished by borrowing stock from someone and selling them. The player then pays the creditor back the same number of shares, plus a fee, in the future.
The hope of the player is that the shares he uses to repay his borrowed shares can be obtained at a lower cost when time comes to pay up.
In order to short a stock, some entity has to have some of that stock to 'loan'. Here's a shocker: nobody is willing to put up for shorting SCO shares worth appx $15 to recieve the same number of shares (which will almost certainly be worth less) in the future along with a fee.
Mod down people who tell people how to mod in their sigs
FSF legal reps have said "Our number one goal in any GPL violation case is to get proper and full compliance with the license; everything else is secondary." And it seems that they don't care if the action is to remove the GPL'ed code or to move to the GPL license, since either one brings them into compliance. If Microsoft were in violation on some point, the compliance would still be one of two things: remove infringing code, or put the code under GPL.
I trust that Microsoft would choose the first option. 200 lines of code, probably even a million lines of code, could be easily dealt with by a company that makes more in annual profit than most companies see in total annual cash flow.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Posted: 06/10/2003 at 16:50 GMT
As a side note (not that you aren't a bright bloke), in Europe, the days are listed first, followed by the month.
e.g.: 06/10/2003 equates to 10/06/2003 in the US.
The original post did not make a mistake by stating that the article was posted today.
You are aware that many countries format dates in the highly sensible DD/MM/YYYY format, right?
I read the internet for the articles.
It's OK!!!
I'm not blind or in desperate need of an eyeball polish (mmmmm Claudia Black). On the front page of The Register it says "30 days notice for 30 years business". Thats where it cam from. Yipee!!!
Oh and Save FarScape!