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.

15 of 406 comments (clear)

  1. 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 DrWhizBang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      SGI wants it to be blatantly obvious that they have done nothing to deserve the wrath of SCO. Their approach is differnt than IBM - IBM says "Make my day, SCO. Mess with IBM and feel the hurt!!!". SGI says, "Very sorry, but we don't know what you're talking about. Now please go away?"

      Since SCO is refusing to release that data, SGI does not see any need to - they have clearly washed their hands of the problem, and don't intend to provoke SCO any more than they have to.

      Personally, I am very impressed with SGI's attitude in this whole ordeal - they stay out of it until SCO says something stupid, and then they very matter of factly point out that SCO is wrong, and carry on.

      --
      Schrodinger's cat is either dead or really pissed off...
  2. 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.

  3. Re:*gasp* by overbyj · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  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 platypus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Ahem, and that's because FreeBSD has the corporate backing it has, compared to linux, heh?

      GPL is all about corporations cooperating (sic!), without fearing to be burned that way.

      Take your MAC OS X = BSD+Darwin+Cococa (no nitpicking about that formula, please).
      Do you really think IBM would feel compelled to contribute something important to Darwin under the BSD license, with the effect to make OS X a better performing server, but without in turn profiting from Apples additions?
      The effect of the BSD license and apples adoption of BSD technology is precisely that from now on no potential competitor of apple will add something to this technology under a free license, if he thinks it might be valuable to apple.

      Oh, and btw. the handful of people being caught by microsofts GPL-is-viral-fud are lost cases anyway.

  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. 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.

  7. Re:Kernel Changelog (fix) by Bigby · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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

  8. Re:reminder about shares by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 5, Informative

    "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..

  9. Re:reminder about shares by Chicane-UK · · Score: 5, Funny

    Heh.. it wasn't that SCO didn't want to meet him.. its just that their entire company now consists of lawyers, and the upper upper management. They were all too busy preparing press releases and law suits to come down and meet him ;)

    --
    "Hey! Unless this is a nude love-in, get the hell off my property!!"
  10. Dilbert quote: by mike449 · · Score: 5, Funny

    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"...

  11. Shifting names by mcc · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.

  12. Re:30, 17, whatever by falzer · · Score: 5, Funny

    > 2003 - 1986 = ???

    Umm... profit?

  13. 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.