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."
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!
The code lines correspond to blank lines. SCO has obviously copyrighted blank lines.
That would actually be a bad thing for open source, because it would set bad precedent. It would be much better to wait for the case to be resolved. If and only if it turns out SCO code really is in the kernel should the offending code be replaced. I'd be much more interested in seeing the CVS history of the lines in question -- who put them in and when -- than I'd be in seeing a new "SCO-free" kernel.
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Line 327 of named file 13 is merely a closing brace.
j/k
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
Does this mean we can now replace those lines and let the air out of the SCO tires?
No, we slash the freakin' tires.
Take the cheese to sickbay, the doctor should see it as soon as possible - B'Elanna Torres, "Learning Curve"
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.
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
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
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..."
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
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
>>Does this mean we can now replace those lines and let the air out of the SCO tires?
>No, we slash the freakin' tires.
Carefull, they may be a BBC investigative reporter reading!
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
I liked the comment about how IBM had little or no Intel expertise.
Uhh, they invented the PC, *and* they ported AIX to it in the late 80's.
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." Actually, SCO should not be allowed to argue that. The rules of evidence prevent using the defendant's corrective action to prove liability. The idea is that you don't want to force the defendant to leave in a dangerous or infringing situation in just so his legal position is better.
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).
Don't even think about looking for this code in linux-2.4.x. Not a single line of any of the mentionened patches has been merged into linux-2.4.
You can find the code in these patches provided by IBM:
EVMS evms_aix.h
JFS ref/jfs_inode.h
RCU-2.4.1-01
Something remotely similar to the rcu patch was eventually merged into 2.5.43 and into United Linux. The EVMS header is used by the compatibility module for AIX partitions and is also in United Linux but nowhere in an official linux. The jfs inode header is not used anywhere, because it is the OS/2 file and was provided only for reference.
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....
One point this thread seems to be missing is that not a single line of the "infringing" lines they've cited were actually from SysV's codebase. They're citing code that IBM authored for AIX, and that Sequent authored for Dynix. Some of it was actually put into the kernel, other bits of code were just provided as reference material for those who wanted to copy it.
SCO's claim at this point appears to be that, because IBM developed technologies like JFS and RCU, [Man, the Wik knows everything] then those technologies automatically became SCO's once they were implemented within a UNIX derivative.
In my admittedly non-legal opinion, just because a certain OS technique was discovered and perfected on a UNIX-derived platform, that shouldn't mean that IBM loses the right to bring the same technology to any other platform they're interested in.
It's not about IBM swiping SCO's secret wonder code. It's about IBM developing its own secret wonder code and then being told by SCO that they have no right to use it.
You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!
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?)
Another mirror! http://abuzar.com/sco/Doc-100-A.pdf
Lines 662-664 seem especially damning. :^)
That's why they retained David Boies. Not for the IBM suit, for the criminal and civil cases coming from the SEC and the stockholders. His specialty isn't IP law, it's securities fraud.
Veteran, Bermuda Triangle Expeditionary Force, 1992-1951
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.
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.
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.