Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

SGI Compares Linux & System V Source Code

Posted by simoniker on from the one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other dept.

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.

11 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. reminder about shares by Neophytus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Keep a watch on those stock prices and insider trades. Its not like they are even trying to hide it any more.

    1. Re:reminder about shares by PowerBert · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The writing is on the wall.
      They're not just dumping stock. According to El Reg they dropped a reseller of 30 years today.

    2. Re:reminder about shares by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      well i happened to have the misfortune of being there two weeks ago.

      I was visiting another company and happened to to walk into there building by mistake.

      Security?? I didnt see any, rather attractive young girl on reception though who didnt seem to know much. I asked for the person i was supposed to be seeing and it took her about 10mins to release they had no one by that name or dept working there.

      Whole building had a really cold dead empty feel to it. On the way out i noticed people coming and going by the side exist loading bucket loads of hardware into (pcs, printers, etc...) into peoples car. Odd i thought.

      Wasnt until i left the meeting i was supposed to be at that i saw the big SCO letter above the building i went to originally!!!

      Anyway from the way people where loading up there cars with hardware it definatly had sinking ship look about it with people grabbing what they could now.

  2. the Comparator gets used... by typobox43 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... and it seemed to identify some things. However, as the article says, there is much that could possibly be in the code that violates copyrights that couldn't be picked up by something such as that. Honestly, how do you compare something like that? Sure, you could have a group of real humans compare the code, but that will be subjective... certainly whoever compares it is going to be looking at things from their own point of view. The problem is, there are very few neutral people towards this issue that would know how to compare such a thing. (Arguably, there are just as few on SCO's side :-)

  3. A little more detail please by OzPhIsH · · Score: 5, Interesting

    So, SGI has something we've all been wanting access to, essentially the System V Source. They run a check against the Linux kernal for infingement and only tell us a summary of their findings? Why can't they be more specific? Why can't they say lines 100-110 of module X in Y in the linux kernal came up infringing. They don't have to reveal any "sco owned" code, just what is already opened sourced on the Linux side. I'm I missing something?

    --

    "To lead the people, you must walk behind them"

    1. Re:A little more detail please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Actually, IBM got sued without any prior notice by SCO. For the most part, they've kept quite because any public statements could be used against them in court. Look at IBM's counter claims and you'll see many instances where they are attempting to use SCO's statements against them. This includes statements that SCO has revoked IBM's AIX license even though Novell claims that they have not.

      I'm not saying one is better than the other but I think it's easy to understand where IBM (a conservative company) is coming from.

  4. Good to be kept honest, anyway. by Skyshadow · · Score: 5, Interesting
    In the final analysis, this whole production might end up being a Good Thing.

    First and foremost, it's good to be kept honest -- having other people's IP slipped into your codebase by well-meaning (or otherwise) people is a risk in all development projects. At least with OSS, a company can find the code and get it removed; someday, this will probably be used by a company acting in good faith (as opposed to SCO).

    Second, it'll be nice to have the GPL tested out in court if for no other reason than the ability to point to it and say "it's been tested, it stands up". Given that a lot of important development in the next 10-15 years will be utilizing the GPL as Free-as-in-Speech products slowly displace proprietary fundementals like operating systems, it's important to the industry in general to work out any "bugs" in the GPL and get a prescident established sooner than later.

    And hey, it'll be nice to see McBride brought up on those fraud charges, too -- you can't defraud your investors like this and expect to skate unless you're buddies with the guy in the White House, after all.

    --
    Every year during my review, I just pray the words "slashdot.org" aren't mentioned.
    1. Re:Good to be kept honest, anyway. by RealAlaskan · · Score: 4, Interesting
      Second, it'll be nice to have the GPL tested out in court if for no other reason than the ability to point to it and say "it's been tested, it stands up".

      That's not going to happen; at least, not with a sane defendent. The GPL doesn't restrict my rights to (for example) the Linux kernel: it adds rights which copyright law would not give me. If I ``defeated'' the GPL in court, I would lose, since I would lose those additional rights. Anyone who considers challenging the GPL will soon find that it's a fight he can't afford to win ... or lose.

      Only an insane party would challenge the GPL under those terms. SCO has talked about it, but they haven't put any of those loony ``legal theories'' in any of their court filings, so far as I know.

      ... it's important to the industry in general to work out any "bugs" in the GPL and get a prescident established sooner than later.

      Well, yes, it is. But we won't be able to do it in court: no one who is compos mentis is going to take us there, or let us drag him there.

      For the tin-foil-hat crowd, Microsoft might gain by eliminating the GPL. The temporary confusion and delay could give them a few months of breathing room. Still, even if they are funding SCO's sillyness, I doubt that ``break the GPL'' is on their list for Santa, let alone a serious plan.

      --
      See what I've been reading.
  5. Run Comparator against BSD now by surfinbox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "This comparison revealed a few examples of line-by-line copying, but did not determine whether the code was owned by SCO or in the public domain."
    If Comparator were run against the appropriate *BSD (AT&T public source, right?) I wonder how many of offending script segments would be taken as not SCO's/SysV.

  6. Release the sums ... by taniwha · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So SGI ran Eric's program that makes MD5 sums from a source file - why not release those sums so people can do independant analysis? (I can just imagine SCO's lawyers reving up ... "your honor it's a derived work", "we own those numbers" ...)

  7. Unfortunately.... by interiot · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Unfortunately SGI is talking only about SGI submitted code:
    • The point of SGI's comparison was to search for any potential matches between Unix System V and any contributions that SGI made to the Linux kernel, not to vet the software for the entire community, Estes said in an interview. "We are not making any kind of representation at all about anybody else's contributed code," he said.
    So SCO could still potentially be right in saying that IBM submitted a lot of Unix code into Linux.

    Curiously, because SGI has access to both codebases, and know how to run the Comparator, SGI probably has a good idea how many non-SGI violations are in the code (eg. the details may be complicated, but surely they can guess within an order of magnitude). So for now, it's IBM and SGI knowing and not telling, SCO knowing and saying as many ludicrous things as possible, and the rest of us left to speculate until this thing goes to court.