Slashdot Mirror
SCO Complaint Filed -- Including Code Samples
btempleton writes "The folks at Groklaw have posted a story including a preliminary copy of Caldera/SCO's amended complaint, including lines of code they allege were improperly included in Linux. The PDF can be found at this story The file lists unix filenames with line numbers and filenames and line numbers from the Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, so folks can now go into real depth."
Does this mean we can now replace those lines and let the air out of the SCO tires?
Temperature in Hell== 31 F and falling. . .
You are not the customer.
or anybody else has read "SCO complaint failed"?
Looks like they're pointing out the JFS, EVMA and RCU stuff which everyone knows IBM contributed and probably did modify from IBM's/Dynix's own code. The dispute is about whether SCO has any rights to that code in the first place.
I thought 2.2 was safe. Then again, we thought they were not going after copyright infringement. I'm guessing that is a typo.
Since SCO has still not actually complied with previous discovery motions, submitted millions of lines of code to IBM in paper form (real class act, they are) and keeps changing their case, my guess is we will see the end of this case, perhaps this year.
UNLESS, of course, the Novell vs. SCO suit sidetracks the IBM suit until we can figure out who actually owns Unix...
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
Fast mirror here... not that Groklaw would need :D or not ?
Carefully crafted sig.
Patches for every single Linux distribution by the end of the week.
And it will include commented lines "*uck you, SCO"
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Here's a sample of the actual code:
Select All (*Linux.Users*)
Repeat
Daryls.Bankacct = Daryls.Bankacct + Linux.User.Acct(x)
until total(Linux.Users) = 0
set displaymode = gloat
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
SCO still doesn't have the right to subsume all copyrights to the work that everyone has done on Linux to date, If this is correct, I don't know what the ramifications would be, but linux would survive. Isn't this how BSD ended up? All proprietary code was systematically replaced over time, and the result is still free.
I'm not sending anyone a check for $699.
I've mirrored the PDF file here. At 2.5MB a pop, this mirror is subject to disappear at any time, but perhaps it'll alleviate the load on Groklaw for the time being. Please post other mirrors here.
:)
Thanks PJ for all you do
"BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
The code lines correspond to blank lines. SCO has obviously copyrighted blank lines.
100. The contribution of the Journaling File System ("JFS") was done in a series of "drops" of AIX code identified as "reference files" inside Linux. The first such drop occurred on or about February 2000, with multiple additions and significant follow-up work by IBM since that time to adapt AIX/JFS for enterprise use inside Linux. These drops of reference files do not necessarily become part of the source code in the Linux kernel, but rather are public displays of the Protected Materials so that anyone has access to them and can use them to construct similar file in Linux. The first drop contains (a) a partially functioning port, or transfer, of JFS from AIX to Linux; (b) a set of reference directories (named ref/) which contain the AIX reference version of AIX/JFS; (c) AIX/JFS-related utility files used to maintain and upkeep AIX/JFS; and (d) a set of directories (named directory ref_utils/) which contain the AIX reference version of utilities. Copies of AIX/JFS files into Linux are shown in Table A, below. Table A compares a 1999 version of AIX and shows the following similarities, demonstrating copying of code, structures and/or sequences.
Table A
AIX 9922A_43NIA File Line #s Linux 2.2.12 ref/File Line #s
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 16-37 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 84-95,
126-138
kernel/sys/vnode.h 109-133 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 96-122
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 39-40 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 189-90
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 161-166 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 414-421
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 172-180 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 37-48
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 199-205 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 52-59
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 62-66 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 286-290
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 72-76 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 295-302
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 83-158 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 322-411
These transfers of AIX/JFS to Linux are in violation of the IBM Related Agreements, and are an improper use of AIX for adaptation to a general operating system.
101. IBM has also improperly transferred a UNIX/AIX-based enterprise volume management system ("AIX/EVMS") to Linux. Again, this was done by IBM to transfer enterprise-class capabilities from AIX to Linux, and was a violation of the IBM Related Agreements and IBM's promise not to adapt AIX as a general operating system for a non-IBM company. The purpose of AIX/EVMS is to allow the management of disk storage in terms of logical 'volumes' in a large enterprise environment. Tools with this level of sophistication and performance were entirely unavailable and unknown to the open source development community prior to IBM's improper transfer to Linux. The actual transfer "patch" by IBM can be found at http://www.sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?g roup_id=25076&package_id=17436. The first code drop of AIX/EVMS by IBM was v0.0.1, which occurred on 03/21/2001. The first major release of AIX/EVMS by Linux was v1.0.0, in Linux 2.4, which occurred on 03/27/2003. The latest Linux release version of AIX/EVMS is v2.2.1, which occurred on 12/20/2003. The following table, Table B, identifies the AIX/EVMA "patches" of source code improperly transferred by IBM to the Linux 2.4 version.
Table B
AIX MERCED/9922A_43NIA Line #s EVMS 1.0.0 patches to Linux 2.4.x Line #s
kernel/sys/IA64/bootrecord.h 64-170 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 157-263
usr/include/liblvm.h 234-250 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 311-327
usr/include/liblvm.h 252-272
289-307 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 329-349
usr/include/liblvm.h 316-363 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 352-400
usr/include/lvmrec.h 24-92 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 266-294
usr/include/lvm.h 26-35 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 6-11
kernel/sys/hd_psn.h 32 include/linux/
Line 327 of named file 13 is merely a closing brace.
j/k
That would be an admission of guilt.
Looking at their list, there can't be more than a thousand lines there. Most of the matches are about 5-10 lines each.
And they're ALL written by IBM. And IBM's perpetual license says they own their contributions.
To save you reading the lengthy PDF, here are some of the major similarities noted:
'int main ()' appears repeatedly in both UNIX System V and Linux
'#include ' is also obvious stealing of code, appearing in many Linux source files
Furthermore, 'for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_LENGTH; i++)' style loops are obviously copied by IBM developers intimately familiar with the original implementations.
SCO's case is strong.
((lambda x ((x))) (lambda x ((x))))
Ameding the kernel could actually be bad for the community. It would acknowledge the validity of the SCO's claims. We shouldn't change anything until the offending code is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a copyright violation.
Otherwise we'd just look guilty.
Very interesting. According to SCO:
- Linux is derived from System V. (75)
- IBM has endeavored to control the open source community. (76)
- IBM plans to destroy UNIX. (77)
- Linus Torvalds can't say who contributed what to Linux. (78)
- A significant amount of UNIX source code is present in Linux 2.4-2.6 kernels. (79)
- Linux developers are incapable of developing enterprise-grade software without stealing from SCO. (80, 81)
- Only IBM's involvement in Linux made Linux viable for enterprise use, and because IBM had access to System V (82), if follows that
- if follows that Linux is a clone of UNIX. (83)
The claimed lines of code appear to be in jfs (which is from AIX, not Sconix), evms (once again from AIX), and RCU. Total number of lines is about 600, plus a few complete files claimed to have be contributed illegally by sequent. I fail to see how IBM is prevented by their contract from contributing their own enhancements (or hell, compatible implementations of their filesystems). The rest of the document seems to just be complaining that with IBM's help, linux is going to wipe a lot of proprietary unixes off of the map. Which I believe fails under the legal term "toughus-fucking-luckus."
====
Crudely Drawn Games
They are still flogging JFS, in spite of the widely known reports that both the current AIX and Linux versions were developed from the IBM OS/2 version of JFS.
Any code in common is probably easily found in the OS/2 sources.
The above text was blatently stolen from a groklaw comment.
87. By making the Linux operating system free to end users, IBM could undermine and destroy the ability of any of its competitors to charge a fee for distribution of UNIX software in the enterprise market. Thus, IBM, with its army of Global Services integrators who earn money by selling services, would gain a tremendous advantage over all its competitors who earn money by selling UNIX licenses.
Seems like someone's sore because IBM has a better business model.
"Break out the gin, and the small violin, I'm a raging success as a failure." --Firewater
I keep thinking of him as Daryl, since Darl is a female name.
To make matters worse, he's a McBride and not a McGroom.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"21. By way of example, in the personal computing market, Microsoft Windows is the best known operating system. The Windows operating system was designed to operate on computer processors ("chips") built by Intel. Thus, Windows serves as the link between Intel-based processors and the various software application that run on personal computers."
I count at least 3 major logical errors in that section, and find it's existence in this document unjustified.
1. Windows is not an operating system, but a family of them - Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT are the operating systems.
2. They were not all designed with Intel as the only manufacturer of systems that the OS should work on.
3. The OS does much more than work with processor "chips".
It seems unlikely to me that lawyers proefficient with modern computer systems worked on this document.
Most telling is that none of the code listed is from TSG, OpenServer or UnixWare, it's all IBM-authored code and the entire gambit rests on the breach-of-contract details.
Cue "Funeral March for a Marionette"...
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Even if we ignore what the term IBM PC means, even if we ignore iRMS, even if we ignore OS2 this still leaves AIX/386 which as far as I recall used to run a considerable part of NATO radar infrastructure. OK, IBM insisted on it being useable only on boards with 1M L2 cache, but I it happily ran on much less then that.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
IBM has violated 2.01 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, using and assisting others to use the Software Products (including System V source code, derivative works, documentation rrelated thereto and methods based thereon) for external purposes that are different from, and broader than, IBM's own internal business purposes. By actively supporting, assisting and promoting the transfer of UNIX technology to Linux, and using its access to UNIX technology to accomplish this objective, IBM is (a) using the Software Product for external business purposes, which include use for the benefit of Linus Torvalds, the general Linux community and IBM's Linux distribution partners, Red Hat, Inc., Novell, Inc., SuSE Linux AG and their respective subsidiaries; and is (b) directly and indirectly preparing unauthorized derivative works based on the Software Products and unauthorized modifications thereto in violation of 2.01 of the Software Agreement.
Notice that SysV code is not listed amongst the files in the complaint. The above claim is only true in the case that SCO's Idea of a derivative work is valid.
IMHO, this is actually a reasonable leagal document, where there may be an actual dispute over the idea of a derivative work. However, SCO should not be allowed to change its tack in the middle of discovery, until now this case has been about a claim of copying of sysV code and breach of contract, but now they are claiming here that there was no copying and IBM breached its contract by contributing code that IBM owns into Linux. SCO no longer claims, as they did in there initial filing, that IBM improperly contributed sysV code into Linux. This should not be allowed on the grounds that until now, SCO has been using improper contributions of sysV code attempt to persuade people to pay license fees. This also means that SCO has once again lied publicly about the ammount severity of the copying. In fact the Linux community would not be a party to the dispute if JFS, RCU, and NUMA were removed from the kernel. (These documents do not explain how SMP is affected accept by NUMA.) In that case the court cannot ignore what SCO has stated in public, while allowing them to state something substantivly different in court, its one or the other SCO, not both.
In any case Linux is indemnified by the fact that they asked IBM if all of there technologies were contributed in good faith, IBM said yes, and the Kernel development community had no reason not to belive them.
I still think that SCO has a lot of explaining to do when this is all said and done.
Did Glenn Beck rape and kill a girl in 1990? gb1990.com
When the case is in front of a judge or jury and the timeline for how quickly code is replaced is presented the judge might just dismiss the case right then and there. Simply put in infringement cases you need to have damages. If all they had to do was release the lines of code they claim are infringing and it's replaced by the end of the week that goes to show how valuble that code really was. The most they could possibly get, if the judge found the code non trivial, is about $10,000 to $20,000 dollars just as a penalty. That's why I think a judge could dismiss the case as SCO couldn't pay their lawyers with that.
But chances are the case is too political and the defence would protest to get the code judged as infringing or not. It's a landmark case as to the methodology to determing what is infringing and what is not when it comes to code.
To me at least it takes a signifigant amout of code, tens of kilobites worth that couldn't be replaced within a month. Damages would have to exceed a quarter million dollars just to judtify taking the case to court. When code can be replaced so easily where is it's value?
I suspect that IBM has been paying close attention to the 'subversive' activities at Groklaw, but I wonder if they'll ever get any direct credit for it. There's been a great deal of
PJ and her legal elves certainly deserve our thanks.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
It'll be called "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at SCO."
It'll be out soon in hardback.
http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
If you look at the list, you'll notice that most of the files are header files. These header files are probably available in the off-the-shelf releases of these OS'es. They have then probably does some compare and came up with the resulting list.
If they get all sources from IBM, they probably will perform the exact same comparison, but on all the new files they got.
However, we shouldn't be so worried about this. According to one post on groklaw, the contents of these files are mostly #include's anyway.
If you are hunting, be aware that their line numbers refer to versions after the application of e.g. a rcu patch. It makes it tricky to find the actual lines, since the patches change the numbering from that in the pristeen distribution.
I just noticed that the first lawyer listed on this SCO document is "Brent O. Hatch", the son of Utah Senator Orrin Hatch.
"78. However, as is widely reported and as IBM executives knew, or should have known, a significant flaw of Linux is the inability and/or unwillingness of the Linux process manager, Linus Torvalds, to identify the intellectual property origins of contributed source code that comes in from those many different software developers. If source code is code copied from protected UNIX code, there is no way for Linus Torvalds to identify that fact."
Um. If source code was copied from protected UNIX code, how the @#$@%@# would Linus know about it? He doesn't have access to the protected source code - it's protected! The only way to know is if the owners of the protected source code make the claim and are able to back it up! How can Torvalds be faulted for not being clarvoyant? Do they mean identify it after the fact? AFAIK no one can say yet that the origins of code X can't be identified. SCO hasn't even let us TRY - they won't tell us what they want identified!
If what they are actually saying is that open source shouldn't be allowed to proceed simply because it doesn't have massive paperwork assigning every bit of code to some source, they've been hitting the crack again. Email archives, content management back trails anyone? And we can go further than that if we are really forced to - the FSF has been getting copyrights assigned to it for years just in case things come to that pass, and if it becomes utterly necessary that might become common practice.
What I'm hoping will come out of all this is a way that open source projects can set themselves up so that no one can sue them without them actually having done something wrong. (OK, OK - I know anyone can still bring the lawsuit. I mean create a situation where the project dispose of the suit in such a way that it doesn't cost the project or developers much of anything and discourages idiots like SCO from attempting it.) That would be useful, and if SCO is the start of a trend may become very necessary.
"I object to doing things that computers can do." -- Olin Shivers, lispers.org
reading slashdot story... free
trying to follow the story links... painful but free
reading the comments... free
finding someone who posted a mirror... free
downloading the pdf from the mirror at 150Kb/s half an hour after the mirror was posted even though its modded to 5... priceless
dude, where the fuck do you get that bandwidth? hook a brother up with a shell and some webspace?
SCOX stock price, meet Mr Floor?
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
Such a move wouldn't be very smart, even if it was technically possible. SCO could easily argue that "those evil linux people removed it because they knew it was infringing code".
It's much better to leave it in, and show a little patience for the legal system. Believe it or not, the Linux community really isn't getting hurt all that much in the corporate marketplace according to surveys I've seen...and the non-corporate linux user base certainly couldn't give a hoot.
I still say this would be a whole lot easier if kernel developers stood up for their work and reputations by doing whatever they can in their respective legal systems(imagine, lawsuits in 30 countries. The RIAA would be proud). So far, all we've seen is a lot of (amusing, but pointless in a court of law) hot air from Linus.
Please help metamoderate.
Here's the issue as best as can be broken down from the whole case Paragraph "IBM's Scheme"...section 91)
AIX's confidential and propriatery UNIX source code extends only to the code that IBM got from SCO originally to start development from.As an author of add-in modules and enhancements, IBM can distribute under MULTIPLE licenses...It can choose dual license if it wishes....OSS and AIX/SCO.
SCO must now show where their original license stipulates "..all your base..." Failing that, IBM can do whatever it wants to do with it's own creations.
In this document SCO identify three groups of what they regard as "infringing" code. They readily admit that the number of examples they can provide is somewhat limited due to the fact that they don't possess themselves enough evidence to prove it. "Damn it, I know they stole it from us - if only I could get the evidence to prove it!".
...
The first set (Table A) is JVS code. As we all know JFS is an IBM/AIX creation, so with this SCO will be focussing on their "derived work" argument.
The second set (Table B) is EVMS code. Again, this is a less-mentioned contribution from IBM AIX into Linux. Again, this will be SCO's "derived work" according to their skewed worldview.
The third and fourth sets are the most interesting (Table C and D). They identify stuff allegedly lifted from Dynix (Sequent) code. I could not find the rclock.* or the kmemdef.* files in 2.4.18 or in 2.4.1 (the version they've named), I presume they were removed at some point - Torvalds or someone else could probably identify when.
In Table D, the code they've highlighted in the 2.4.1 apic.c file consists of #include lines, some comments, and a very basic "if" statement in the middle of some SMP related code for handling timer interrupts, it seems. It's the same in timer.c, they're also complaining about lines which refer to Alpha or IA64, rather odd since they never wrote code concerning those CPUs.
The entry.S reference they've made, going by the code comments, refers to code which switches an i386 back into user mode following a system call. (guess mode - the set of assembly mnemonics to put an i386 into user mode is likely to be very standard; the default code was probably provided free of charge by Intel years and years ago, and probably found it's way into every i386 memory-protected OS written!).
The same seems true of traps.c. The main.c lines are just some includes and some static declarations.
I also did some casual Google searches to see if any of the alleged infringing lines of code showed up anywhere. In all the cases I checked, the lines show only in Linux kernels, and not anywhere else. If this code did appear elsewhere then it isn't immediately obvious where it came from.
So I really don't think that SCO has much of a leg to stand on here
What's so ironic about the suit to me is that when IBM entered the Unix market with AIX in 1990, they were the *first* Unix vendor to introduce their own journal filesystems and volume management tools integrated into the OS.
These now-common approaches to improving the reliability and flexibility of Unix were part of IBM's value-add to Unix... a bit of heritage from their mainframe and minicomputer perspective. It wasn't enough in the marketplace to overcome IBM's late-ness to Unix and the odd uniquenesses of its registry-based configuration, but it did help somewhat in enterprise environments.
Anyway, after 10 years in the Unix market, IBM decides that having had minimal/modest success in the commercial Unix marketplace, perhaps they would have better luck in the free Unix marketplace (making money selling services,) particularly if they can catch this wave early rather than spending a decade worrying about cannibalization of their own product line. So they take the AIX 'crown jewels' and share them with the free Unix community.
And SCO claims that they are derivatives of SCO's original Unix work?!
If any version of AT&T Unix/Unixware that shipped to people like IBM included journal filesystems or volume management or NUMA SMP, then maybe I could buy it, but given the dictionary definitions of "derived" I just can't.
(dictionary.com entry for
"derive": "to obtain or receive from a source".
"derivative": "copied or adapted from others")
--LP
IBM Develops some technology for OS/2
IBM adds it to AIX
SCO (claiming to own copyrights to Un*x) says anything derivative of Unix (AIX in this case) becomes their IP
SCO Sues IBM for copyright infringement
IBM demonstrates this technology existed prior and was given to both operatings systems as an add-on
SCO loses
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
SCO seem to be saying IBM knowingly contributed code to Linux knowing it would help linux succeed over traditional Unix flavours...
So let me get this right IBM gave code from their expensive product to a free product...
Hmmm.... why???
SCO should be made to demonstrate what motivation IBM had in acting this way -- other than IBM knowing they could sell services better than OS's...
--- Users are like bacteria -> Each one causing a thousand tiny crises until the host finally gives up and dies.
They should know, some of human DNA is stolen IP from SCO. They just compared random samples of DNA to one SCO employee and found a lot of common secuences in the code. They will start asking for payments the next week.
"I think this line is mostly filler"
Wow, a collection of header files that have similar function declarations!!! Unreal! Those IBM bastards!
Correct me if I am wrong, but POSIX compliance does not require a license from SCO. Defining these functions similarly to the SysV style is not a breach of IP. It's the code that these functions represent that may be in breach, but SCO does not outline any of this.
Also, the JFS file system is IBM's own work. Yes, if IBM makes a change to the actually system v code base by adding jfs, then those changes are only usable by the licensees. But there is no indication that the implementation of JFS made any impact on that SYSV standard. Its a code base that is external to the licensed system v code and is therefore not under any of SCO's jurisdiction.
In conlusion, their case is null and void. I hope their board of directors spend a few years behind bars for this spectacular abuse of the US legal system. Maybe IBM can pay off some inmates to make Darl someones bitch.
for (i = 1; i < 5; i++) { foo(i); } /* one line */
/* three lines, same code */
for (i = 1; i < 5; i++) {
foo(i);
}
Toronto-area transit rider? Rate your ride.
the story goes something like this:
1) dave cutler's VAX/VMS team gets bored (funding cut)
2) microsoft hires dave and his team (6 people).
3) they code 200,000 lines per year EACH for 5 years, exclusively in c.
4) paul leach (of apollo and NCS 1.0 which became DCE/RPC fame) recommends DCE/RPC for NT Domain services.
5) bill gates orders from-on-high that NT must have a windows interface.
6) dave's team add a windows subsystem to placate bill: they have to port the win16 subsystem to 32-bit (hence the win32 subsystem).
[7) ibm somehow gets involved: nt also has an OS/2 subsystem. someone gets terribly embarrassed that NT uses ibm's OS/2 "HPFS" and orders that NT must have its own file system (esp. because HPFS doesn't support VAX/VMS security model) hence NTFS.]
8) DEC cottons on to what dave cutler is up to, especially when the VAX/VMS security model's interface turns up pretty much function-for-function in NT, and gets integrated properly into the NT Domain Services.
9) DEC gets paid $50m and mysteriously NT 3.51 gets ported to the DEC Alpha.
that's why NT runs on those lovely RISC processors: it was written in c and so was dead-easy to add other OSes.
not bad doing 2 weeks work and getting paid $50m.
Can someone explain why SCO sends people like Weiss & Dal's little brother to the plate when they're clinging to life? These people are wet farts. I would rather be defended by my grandmother in court, and she thinks she's a horse. Really. They just gave Boies millions & a stake in the company - where the uckfa is he?
And yes, I now this is not 100% on-topic. However I think the disappearance of a key figure is noteworthy (I would argue more so that SCO claiming ownership of IBMs work, as they are here).
SCO's filing was 80% fluff and was filled with a lot of mistruth concerning the os marketplace. Looks like it comes down to one question: does SCO or IBM own JFS. The answer there is obvious. Regardless, SCOs bantering about wanting $600 per processor and the like are silly - most linux users don't use JFS anyway. At the end of the day we can expect more suits like this as Linux erodes the value of intellectual property. And it's important to remember that an idea is only valuable if it is a comparitively good idea... Had SCO continued to innovate, and adapt to the market there would be no reason to sue. Linux exists because Unix vendors screwed users for far too many years.
-- $G
However, they have thereby limited their current claims to these sections. And five beeeellion dollars.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
In case you were wondering what kernel version 2.4.1-01 is and why the files/line numbers shown in the complaint are not there/all bogus: apply the RCU patch found here, bottom of page, to kernel 2.4.1.
Alex
Heisenberg may have been here
i have no access to the aix or dynix code, but let's take a look at some of these lines. i don't have the ibm patches and am too lazy to download them, but they are all header files of things you would expect to be exactly the same (like inode structures and such). but looking at the code below (and others i didn't bother to paste), i am hardly impressed with sco's claims.
[ cpu]);
sco claim:
dynix kernel/os/kern_clock.c 2028-2059
linux 2.4.1 arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 25-28, 662-664, 676-684
25-28:
#include <asm/smp.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
#include <asm/mpspec.h>
662-664:
* useful with a profiling multiplier != 1
*/
if (!user)
676-684:
prof_counter[cpu] = prof_multiplier[cpu];
if (prof_counter[cpu] != prof_old_multiplier[cpu]) {
__setup_APIC_LVTT(calibration_result/prof_counter
prof_old_multiplier[cpu] = prof_counter[cpu];
}
#ifdef CONFIG_SMP
update_process_times(user);
#endif
Furthermore, SCO has no copyrights to IBM's code (they only own copyright to their own code, that's why they can't force IBM to give it to them). Quoting copyright law: According to SCO: So perhaps it is possible that IBM violated the contract by not keeping any contributed source within the license scope, although did they not meet this condition by keeping the AIX derivative work to themselves? (The materials being the final derivative work that is AIX.) They are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please. Of course IANAL, so judge for yourself.
Blaming the demise of SCO on Linux is stupid. They were not moving forward. What really killed the horse drawn carriage was the motor vehicle changing the whole business. SCO blaming Linux for loss of biz is really having a big scratch through the garbage can. Linux is part of a *nix renesance that SCO is not contributing to, and IMHO, has no rights to.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
It is plain-as-day that IBM's adoption of Linux is yet another thrust/counter-thrust in the decades old struggle against Microsoft, especially now that they threaten the Enterprise market with increasingly robust NT 5.0 based system software (laugh if you want, but that's how you need to see it when painting the Big Picture).
By pushing the free OS, Big Blue can use it to sell consultancy, support and best of all, the leases on their fantastically expensive hardware, while at the same time undermining win2k based systems and harnessing the power of volunteering and crazed idealogue hobbyist developers.
It's a masterstroke strategy, where the payoffs easilly make up for the $Billion Dollar outlay and there are beau-coup bucks more to be saved by phasing out the proprietary UNIX development.
Yeah, but I hope that doesn't mean this whole mess will be over soon or it'll be alot harder to get some good Karma and +5 Funny posts around here....
In fact, anyone worried about SCO's claims on Linux would merely be acting in "good faith" by removing allegedly infringing lines from the kernel. Courts assume that anyone acting to mitigate damages (whether real or imagined) is acting in good faith and scores bonus points.
Parties (including plaintiffs) that do not try to mitigate damages are generally held in disdain. Just remember: the judicial system is lazy and doesn't *really* want to hear your case. They want you to work it out. If you can't work it out, they are even too lazy to determine fault and usually just split the difference ('equity' law).
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
Head on over to GrokLaw
They are converting all the documents to HTML and searchable text as we speak.
Save a Life. Donate Blood. Please.
I don't know what article you read, but it sounds like SCO has a case to me.
And if I only used that one sided court filing from SCO as evidence, then I would agree. Fortunately, this is not the only piece of evidence.
First of all, IBM has taken great pains to insure that anyone on their Linux team has never had access to AIX or Sys5 code. It was setup as a clean room exercise. So, their statements are not damning, since they take great care to keep the two divisions isolated from each other.
Second, if you read something beside this ONE filing, you would know that SCO is claiming that any software or code that has ever been included in AIX is a derivative, which is not accurate. IBM had developed some journaling code in OS/2, then ported it over to AIX, yet SCO is claiming it has rights to this software, even tho it is trivial to demonstrate it is not derived from Unix, it is ported to Unix.
Third, just because a concept was introduced into Unix originally doesn't mean its infringing to be included in Linux. Some knowlege becomes virtually "Public Domain" simply because after 20 years, it has been talked about, documented, researched and experimented with by Universities and individuals. Figuring out how to impliment a feature based upon published documentation and freely available (and useable) information is called reverse engineering, not infringement. For it to be infringing, it must be a "cut and paste" job. Independent discovery is not illegal, even in America.
Fourth, IBM helping Linux is not illegal in and of itself. Implying that IBM licensed code, so any help that they were to give Linux is illegal is beyond ignorant. Their first major contribution was over 100 different printer drivers, for instance.
Fifth, IBM has extensive review about what is GPLed and what is not. They have made it perfectly clear that they will not release code wholesale, and instead are releasing code with full support and documentation, after the code has been reviewed. While they *could* make a mistake and release a portion of code that they should not have, it is unlikely considering all the checks and balances they are going through.
Sixth, there is reason to believe SCO owns the right to USE and LICENSE Unix as it sees fit, but not the copyright to actual code. There is even a lawsuit about it. But if you had read more than this one filing, you would know about Novell vs. SCO.
Seventh, So far all the code released before today as proof has been proven to be in the Public Domain and/or BSD. I have not looked at the actual code released today, but I am sure Bruce Perens will have a release within a day or three with the dirt on that. Also, some of the header files that allegedly infringe are from pre-1.0 days, and are easily documented as owned by Linus, since they were posted on USENET freely back in 91-92.
I could go on and on, but this is already more than an AC deserves.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, sir?"
Prospective Juror: "Well, I have a masters in Computer Engineering..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, sir, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, maam?"
Prospective Juror: "Well, I am in charge of keeping the office server running..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, maam, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, maam?"
Prospective Juror: "Well, I use one to create reports..."
SCO Lawyer: "...Sorry, maam, thankyou for your time. Goodbuy."
SCO Lawyer: "Hello, what is your experience with computers, sir?"
Prospective Juror: "Camputersh? Oh, you mean the Gateway? I guess their ok. That Mine Sweeper game sure is fun!"
SCO Lawyer: "Thankyou sir, one more question: What is your experience with the web?"
Prospective Juror: "Wha... Oh, you mean Internet Explorer (TM)? Don't use it much 'cause I got AOL (TM). I guess it's ok. I got this eeh-mail from this nice Nigerian man the other day..."
SCO Lawyer: "*DING*DING*DING* We have a winner!"
You say that in jest, but Daniel Lyons of Forbes has been known to quote random people from blogs as sources for his stories.
Honestly, were I his editor, I would have fired him after that. Investigative journalism it was not. This gives me very serious misgivings about trusting anything Forbes says, because I cannot imagine how that story could have slipped past even the most minimal editorial review...
It seemed rather apropos, yet disturbing, that that article was meant to be an attack on the credibility of Groklaw, after PJ of Groklaw chided him for accepting SCO's statements without any apparent research, as he had not done even the most minimal fact-checking.
I would be willing to bet that he is glad that I am not his boss... To anyone from Forbes reading this: I value research more than oppinion. And yes, I do mention your failures to anyone I know who might even think of subscribing.
Worst reporter ever. (Maybe seeing his face on Google image search for that would make his day?)
Groklaw:
80. The first versions of Linux evolved through bits and pieces of various contributions by numerous software developers using single or dual processor computers. Unlike IBM, virtually none of these software developers and hobbyists had access to enterprise-scale equipment and testing facilities for Linux development. Without access to such equipment, facilities and knowledge of sophisticated development methods learned in many years of UNIX development it would be difficult, if not impossible, for the Linux development community to create a grade of Linux adequate for enterprise use.
Could anyone comment on "enterprise-scale equipment" and the idea of the impossibility that "hobbyists" could make Linux work at the enterprise level?
Is SCO guilty of knowingly makinging false claims (ie. that they were being violated by IBM) in order to prop up their stock price?
Martha Stewart's case is based exactly on this (that she made false claims that she didn't engage in insider trading so that her own company's stock, Martha Stewart, wouldn't go down).
The SCO filing says something like "here's these couple dozen short patches of directly copied code, and discovery on IBM's AIX codebase will show millions more". This filing isn't trying to prove there's enough infringement that damages can be collected. All it's trying to show is that there's the faintest glimmer of evidence that even the slightest infringement occurred, in order to get further discovery and delay the case some more. IOW it's yet another attempt to circumvent the judge's order to show with specificity where all the infringement is.
SCO can not claim POSIX because IEEE came up with it
"Mission Accomplished" -- George W. Bush May 1, 2003
First of all, IBM has taken great pains to insure that anyone on their Linux team has never had access to AIX or Sys5 code. It was setup as a clean room exercise.
While this may be true for some things (although, really, has IBM actually said this?), it's definitely not true for the RCU stuff, which very clearly says it was " based on original DYNIX/ptx code".
I think this probably won't matter, since IBM can definitely make a good case that RCU isn't derivative of SysV/"SCO" code even though it was implemented in Dynix -- but the path through which this got into Linux seems pretty clear.
Wow, its amazing to see what total crap people can spout off and get modded up
If you are trying to argue to a judge that your code does not contain any stolen code, then SCO points out the alleged lines of stolen code and then as a result, you go changing it, you will have some serious explaining to do to the judge.
I don't mean to be arrogant here, but I'm a lawyer and you do not appear to be, so please don't go around giving legal advice to people who might think its correct.
actually i'd be surprised if the match were all that close.
pr0n - keeping monitor glass spotless since 1981.
Nice try bucko. Though some /. users might be too stupid to understand the concept of mitigating damages, but most of us are not.
Besides, the ones who have a third grade concept of liability ("we better not try to fix it, otherwise we'd just look guilty") wouldn't be able to fix the alleged infringing code anyway, so their opinions are worth nearly as much as SCO's claims.
Still, there's no (legal) harm in using clean room approach, and it might help in arguing that certain piece of code could not have been copied verbatim.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
Its also a false predication in that IBM is supposedly responsible for making Linux free. Because it couldn't be possible that IBM recognized a "successful" development community and positioned itself to gain financially by becoming an early adopter. Of course it's only slightly more amusing that SCO themselves tried to capitalize on "free" software... but failed.
The entire court filing is full of this type of crap.
-- No matter how great your triumphs or how tragic your defeats, approximately one billion Chinese couldn't care less.
No, they are free to use their own copyrighted code wherever they please, subject to the terms of a contract that they signed prior to writing that code in which they agreed to limitations on those uses. The contract appears to allow them to use the code in binary form in any of their own products. But it also says that they can't reveal the methods (eg, source code) without AT&T's (now SCO's) permission. There's an addendum to the contract that appears to provide them with a way out of that part of the agreement. One interesting part of the case will be those bits that came from Dynix; they were developed under a contract like the one IBM signed, but without the addendum; when IBM bought those bits, they probably can't bring them under the IBM addendum.
IBM really needs to have this case play out all the way, in order to establish once and for all what portions of their work the contract applies to. SCO's betting a real long shot here, and there's no way IBM can be found liable for $5B in damages to SCO, but it needs to get settled.
This isn't actually what they are claiming to be infringing. Because they are claiming the infringement is 2.4.1-01, this is in reference to the RCU patch against 2.4.1. Available here http://lse.sourceforge.net/locking/rcu/patches/rcl ock-2.4.1-01.patch
/*
/*
diff -u --recursive --new-file 2.4.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c v2.4.1-rc/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c
--- 2.4.1/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c Wed Dec 6 02:13:48 2000
+++ v2.4.1-rc/arch/i386/kernel/apic.c Tue Feb 20 16:46:33 2001
@@ -22,6 +22,11 @@
#include <linux/interrupt.h>
#include <linux/mc146818rtc.h>
#include <linux/kernel_stat.h>
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+#include <linux/sched.h>
+#include <linux/rclock.h>
+#endif
+
#include <asm/smp.h>
#include <asm/mtrr.h>
@@ -654,6 +659,10 @@
{
int user = user_mode(regs);
int cpu = smp_processor_id();
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+ int cpunum = cpu_number_map(cpu);
+#endif
+
* The profiling function is SMP safe. (nothing can mess
@@ -663,6 +672,17 @@
*/
if (!user)
x86_do_profile(regs->eip);
+
+#ifdef CONFIG_RCLOCK
+ if (((RC_PLOCAL_rclockcurlist(cpunum) != NULL) &&
+ RC_GEN_LT(RC_PLOCAL_rclockgen(cpunum), rc_ctrlblk.curgen)) ||
+ (RC_PLOCAL_rclockcurlist(cpunum) == NULL &&
+ RC_PLOCAL_rclocknxtlist(cpunum) != NULL) ||
+ test_bit(cpunum, &rc_ctrlblk.needctxtmask) ||
+ ((jiffies - rc_ctrlblk.clock) > RCLOCK_STALL_WARN))
+ rc_chk_callbacks(user || (current == init_tasks[cpunum]));
+#endif
+
if (--prof_counter[cpu] <= 0) {
Don't I remember some company lending a multi-processor system to Alan Cox a few years back so that he could work on scaling SMP code?
Ah yes, I think it was a company called "Caldera" who did that (http://www.linux.org.uk/SMP/title.html). You know, they're called "SCO" now...
If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
Don't forget Daniel Lyons' (Forbes Magazine) big bold prediction (from here):
SCO Group will settle its lawsuit against IBM. Both sides will declare victory. The Linux community will turn on IBM.
The only surprise here is that someone (Forbes) pays Dan to write this stuff (apparently the New York Times's fantasy journalism team was all filled up). Dan goes on to point out that Linux and VoIP technologies are no different than Pets.com and other marketing fluff:
technologies like Linux and voiceover-IP still involves this crazy notion that companies can make money by giving things away.
This is like Dan calling electricity a "crazy notion" because he listened to some fly-by-night business scheme involving electrical current. Looks like Forbes is got some fat to trim.
*scoove*
In order to understand SCOs theories, one must first understand the theory of cooties. Cooties are invisible ickies that can be transmitted, usually by touch, but often by mere association.
Under the Cootie theory of copyright and trade secret law, Linux looks like Unix, so now Linux has cooties. IBM touched Unix, thus giving cooties to AIX. JFS acquired cooties when it was ported to AIX, even though JFS didn't have cooties when it was originally developed. Thus, Linux has cooties because it has AIX's cooties which AIX got from staring cross-eyed at Unix. Linux has the same header lines as Unix, therefore Linux has Unix cooties. In conclusion, anyone touching Linux will get cooties and owe a cootie tax to SCO, which will soon have more money than Scrooge McDuck.
For more information, see "Everything I needed to know about intellectual property law I learned on the elementary school playground.", by Darl McBride.