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.
Keep a watch on those stock prices and insider trades. Its not like they are even trying to hide it any more.
... 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 :-)
SGI:Hello SCO!
SCO:Hello.
SGI:We have just one word for you.
SCO:And that would be?
SGI:OWNZOR!!
SCO:D'oh!
Note, the above has been checked against the Linux kernel and System V source and it matches neither. (You hear that down there in Salt Lake City?)
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
SCO said that there are still unpatched systems that are running with the "benefit" of those lines of code. Shouldn't that be "weighted down" or "burdened" insetad.?
Engineering and the Ultimate
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"
I am really starting to believe the theory put out earlier that this is a a real pump and dump scheme. In Darl's contract, it states that he is in for a big payday if there are four consecutive quarters of profitability. The four quarters are over in February which conveniently is the time the IBM countersuit is supposed to get going again after the continuance.
As much as this whole fiasco sucks, you have to give Darl credit for being a master at pump and dump here if this is the case. Come February, I would not be surprised in the least bit if there is a sudden resignation by him and he relocates to somewhere in the south Pacific or Carribean.
No trees were harmed in the composition of this; however, numerous electrons were inconvenienced.
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.
"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.
We here have reviewed you claims and have come to the following conclusions:
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
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" ...)
- 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.
I just called Geico and saved a bundle on my auto insurance!
DeCSS is only ~240 lines of code.
"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
Here are a few suggestions I have seen a few times (some of them here on
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
The 200 lines part refers only to SGI's contribution to the Linux kernel. A full (though automatic) comparison found several additional matches, though they decline to specify where and say they haven't investigated the origins of the code snippets to see if any are there illegally. It's understandable that SGI's immediate priority is to defend themselves, and not Linux as a whole.
Bank robbers nowdays, if they manage to get out of the bank with some money, almost always get caught.
I always think, "Wow! Who would be stupid enough to try to rob a bank anymore?"
Darl and his gang are simply pulling the stock market equivalent to robbing a bank. They'll make off with some money, but shortly afterward they'll get reeled in.
SCOX will get slammed once the clue hits the fan for the public here in a few months. Unlike Darl's Ikon lawsuit, which was an altogether different theft than this one, this robbery is right out in public view, and it's not going to go unnoticed.
Once the party is over and the SCOX investor dupes have lost their money, there will be shareholder suits against Darl and other executive and members of the board. There will be SEC investigations (that should have already begun, but public outcry haven't forced yet).
The good news for Darl, I guess, is that he'll manage to stash some of the loot for safe keeping, and the business world will forgive him so he can pull another stunt someday in the future.
We can only hope that he's barred from becoming an executive or board member of a publicly traded company in the future.
.sigs are for post^Hers.
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.
Can someone please tell me what SCO really stands for?
Star Control Online?
Soul Calibur Online?
Speakerbraclet Candletruck Operations?
Its shortermism - everything in the UK and US is driven around short term results. A lot of real smaller business is driven by the long term , and for the long term you build productive relationships instead
People want short term results from their banks/funds/pensions, so the banks/pensions want the same so the companies get to suffer.
Dogbert: I can't tell you my plans for the assets of this company...but it rhymes with 'village'.
Dilbert: I hope it's "fillage"...
Some people still don't get it.
What SGI found makes no difference. In the end it doesn't matter one bit if the Sys V code is the KJV of the holy bible and the Linux code is actually a Monty Python script in chinese.
None of this matters.
Why?
Get it thru your heads people, this is all about stock prices and what the executives can liquidate and move out of the country. They don't give a rats arse about collateral damage and the facts don't have a role in this game.
I've lived thru this before with Gulf Resources and the Bunker Hill Superfund.....believe me this is no different. It's all about a few people taking the money and laughing their way to some off shore bank.
Please do not let facts like this SGI thing distract you from the truth. Believe me, SCO isn't.
. Quit playing Monopoly with Bill. Switch to one of many non-Microsoft products today.
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
> 2003 - 1986 = ???
Umm... profit?
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
When reviewing the SCO vs. Open Source situation, several elements need to be kept clear. Here are some simple rules:
1. Classify SCO news as rhetoric or legal. Most press is rhetoric only, very little actual changes to legal situation.
a. If rhetoric, compare against previous statements to see if new claim or re-hash / forking of previous rhetoric.
b. If re-hash / forking, compare if clarifies previous rhetoric or obfuscates rhetoric on a subject.
2. If legal, ask if purpose is to resolve dispute or lengthen proceedings.
a. If lengthens proceedings, determine if validity vs. delay factor.
SCO had only nebulous contract claims to derivative works on the thinnest of definitions in its lawsuit. SCO repeatedly blathers on and on over other issues that it has not yet added to the litigation. IBM raised the level of litigation with copyright and patent issues. IBM also raised the General Public License issue.
SCO has a long history of contentious statements about the GPL while continuing to use it to this very day. SCO showed a detailed knowledge of the GPL. SCO based their IPO on the GPL. SCO released several of their applications under the GPL. SCO still ships a large amount of GPL applications to improve the usability of their UNIX product. SCO cannot separate the validity of the GPL when legally disputing Linux and releasing Samba or any of several GNU applications. SCO cannot re-write their history before a court. Their SEC filings are public record, with the GPL included. It seems impossible for SCO to repudiate the GPL given they still have it as a core part of their business strategy. The actual filing of any attempt to invalidate the GPL would place SCO in direct conflict with all the filings that they made to the SEC. Even a win on a contractual basis would not invalidate the GPL, and SCO cannot hope to mount an effective legal challenge against the GPL.
SCO will attempt to stay in a high public profile and convert that into stock value for as long as they can. Possibly a buyout offer will come in to end the charade.