It doesn't use those words, but they've been used several times elsewhere. It made perfect sense. Remember, they didn't want the old implementation used, they were fed up with it, and the OS/2 team is 'chinese walled' from the AIX team, so even if it wasn't literally intended as a clean room that's what happened.
Basically the original implementation was too tightly tied to specific AIX features. So a spec was written and given to the OS/2 team, who were completely separate from the AIX team, and they wrote a clean implementation avoiding such problems. This OS/2 implementation, then, was ported to both AIX and Linux. The original AIX implementation is dead, and has been for some time. All implementations in current use are based on the clean room work by the OS/2 team.
IIRC, it was originally developed for AIX, yes, but the OS/2 version was not a port, it was a clean room implementation from the spec sheet instead. And it was the OS/2 code that was the basis for the Linux port. So, in fact, the article is correct.
Does it matter that the code in question was 'removed from the code because it was ugly'? It was still obviously there in the first place and used as a basis for the new code.
Obviously it doesn't matter in that sense. But it's a great vindication of all of us that have been skeptical of SCOs claims, because it's exactly the kind of thing we predicted. It's, at worst, a piece of BSD licensed code that should have had a copyright notice preserved that got lost along the way. This isn't the sort of thing you can justify a $3billion lawsuit on, regardless. They should have sent an email and asked for the copyright notice to be replaced, that's what anyone else would have done.
On top of that, it's code contributed by SGI, so they're on the hook for actual damages (not bloody much) but even if SCOs novel ideas about suing users were correct, they couldn't sure more than about 5 people over this anyway. It's a file that's used only to support one of SGIs old machines, it's totally irrelevant to the vast majority of users.
Even if the code wasn't in there at all, but they examined the original SCO code in order to create their own, that would still be in violation of their IP rights.
Wrong.
First off there's no such thing as 'IP rights' per se, that's just a rubric used to cover four different sorts of rights; patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.
SCO has no related patents, so that's not an issue. SCO doesn't own the Unix trademark (the Open Group does) and even if they did that's not an issue here. Copyright doesn't prohibit learning from someone elses code, only copying it outright, so it doesn't back up your claim.
A trade secret would come closest - if someone saw the code under NDA and then copied it into Linux, then that person would definately be liable. But only that person, and the trade secret status of the code would be ended.
I actually mentioned this in my submission, but it got cut out.
The 'SCO' slide of their 'own' code shows the Berkley Packet Filter. The Linux code they showed, they claim is an 'obfuscated copy' but it is in fact a well documented clean implementation written from the published spec. The interesting issue is that SCO seems to be under the misapprehension that the BFP is their own code to begin with - that seems to imply that they illegally stripped a copyright notice somewhere along the way.
Definately do run it by a lawyer first, and I'd suggest in addition to your own lawyer I'd run it by Eben Moglen himself. It should be doable, but you certainly don't want to get yourself into a fight with SCO without being absolutely certain of what you're doing.
I thought that the license that they were selling was for Unixware. And that they were merely "promissing" that if you bought their license to Unixware, that they wouldn't sue you for using Linux.
A transparent obfuscation, and one which can easily proven to a judge in just minutes by pulling out all the official statements in which they refer to it as a 'linux license.'
And since they've stopped selling Linux, they are no longer distributing Linux binaries.
Incorrect. They are still distributing binaries on a public ftp server. I'm not sure if they still have the source up, but they did apr. two weeks ago, long long after they filed the suit against IBM.
(And I notice that the FSF hasn't filed suit.)
Because the FSF doesn't hold copyright on linux, and does not distribute linux.
Read the license. Section 4 in particular. "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
Then go read the binary-only run-only license SCO is selling. Then tell me how that's compatible with the GPL.
Also, explain how SCO can state publically that the GPL is invalid, and simultaneously be modifying and distributing all this GPL software on the other. If, in their opinion (they're wrong but that doesn't matter a bit in this case, we're talking about intent) the GPL is invalid, then it follows that they aren't actually accepting it. If they aren't actually accepting it, however, then they have no right whatsoever to modify and distribute it.
Yes, but the FSF owns the copyright on all those programs. The FSF cannot tell someone violating the GNU copyright (by violating the GPL) that they cannot use Linux (even though Linux is GPLed) because they do not own the copyright, and can therefor neither license, nor revoke the license of Linux.
It's true, of course, that they have standing to enforce copyright only where they own it. But don't confuse having standing to enforce copyright with license revocation.
In this case no person would be revoking the license except the licensee. The license terms are clear, if you violate them, the license is revoked automatically. Neither the FSF nor anyone else can revoke your license except for you yourself.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, then you stand in copyright violation any time you use any GPL code beyond your basic rights under copyright law. Since the violation is copyright infringment, it is up to the copyright holders to pursue legal sanctions if they wish. They have no obligation to, and so you might get away with it, but there is no guarantee - the copyright holder of any GPL code you are infringing on can serve you for it at any time once you revoke your license.
Now this is exactly what SCO has done - they've revoked their own rights to use GPL code, deliberately, and they've made an enourmous amount of noise about it. They're publically stating that they don't think the GPL is valid anyway. Well, if they don't think it's valid, how can they agree to it? If they don't agree to it, they have no right to use any code under it. They have no right to modify and/or distribute Samba, Linux, Gnome, the GNU toolchain... any of it. Both because they stand in violation of the GPL in the case of Linux specifically, and because their public statements make it clear that they do not agree to the GPL terms on the other packages which means that they have no license for those programs.
Now is it possible that a court would rule that the words of the GPL are not properly written to be able to enforce section 4 in this case? Sure. If so then it would be good to find out so the next revision can fix that. But even so the other line still means that SCO is practicing copyright violation in their use of any and all GPL software too. It's not uncommon or unwise to give courts multiple arguments in these cases, and the arguments can even contradict each other, that's not a problem. Look at SCO and IBMs court filings - both take this approach, saying A, then saying even if you reject A, then B, and in the event B is not true, then C must be...
This does not mean I lose my license to distribute other products also licensed under the GPL.
Actually it does. Violate the GPL on a GNU product and refuse to be reasonable when it's pointed out and they'll C&D you to cease modifying and distributing anything the FSF owns copyright on and licenses under the GPL, not just that one program. It's pretty clear in the license that this is the intent, and it's been asserted in the past. So far the violators have always backed down rather than risk their chances in court.
Yes, of course you're right, SCO still has the right, say, to run Samba on their servers.
But the main 'use' they engage in with Samba is modifying it and distributing it in their own system. That 'use' is in fact governed by the licensing which they have forfeited, and is therefore copyright infringement which the Samba team could pursue them for.
End users cannot infringe on a copyright unless they make unauthorized copies of the work -- users at home tend not to do this, but corporate users make enough copies that SCO could (if you assume they have a valid claim to copyright in the first place) claim that the corporate users infringe.
A person is only liable under trade secret or breach of contract laws if he is party to a contract or has reasonable knowledge that the information is protected. Someone who simply uses the Linux kernel would be safe from such a claim, as would a majority of developers.
The interesting thing here is that the 'license' SCO is trying to bully companies into buying covers only the activities that SCO cannot possibly have any legal basis for pursuing them for in the first place - simply running the software. If you pay them, you get a contract limiting your rights to the ones which you already have, even assuming the strongest form of SCOs case! Under all other assumptions, you would be paying SCO to limit your rights drastically.
It would be absolutely stupid to agree to such a license from them - it gives the buyer nothing, gives SCO a contract which they can later use to sue you, after all the claims they're making now get dropped or dismissed, and you pay them for the privilege!
SCO obviously thinks the people running these companies are incredibly stupid.
Actually the GPL does have a provision which automatically terminates the license if its provisions are not honoured.
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Perens has done a great job of collating what all of us have dug up here.
Short form is, this comment and the code in the second slide go together (although the actual code on the second slide has obviously been tampered with, and will not compile,) and the original work on which it is all based was written by Dennis Ritchie ca. August 1973. It traces not only in the V6 and V5 code I've posted links to, but to V3, the oldest version of Unix which survives for us to read today, and beyond. Several derivatives have been released under BSD licensing, so it occurence in (old) versions of Linux is completely legal.
As many of us have suspected since the first rumours of Caldera/SCOs new business model surfaced, they've got a lot of pattern matches but not the brains to realise that just because a string of characters occurs in a file they bought from the Santa Cruz Operation it doesn't necessarily follow that they have unencumbered copyright on it wherever it might appear.
Surely there is something to what you say, but I would take it with a grain of salt.
So far I've gotten I think 15 copies of the virus, 2 messages letting me know it spoofed me and the attachment was refused.
On the other hand I get a lot of spam. A lot. Very likely because several of my addresses are relatively old. It's gotten to the point where I only bother to report the ones that slip through my filter, and I still send around 10 reports a day.
I have no moral compunction about killing spammers. Torturing them to death in front of their children would be a service to the children, and to humanity.
I'm only half joking.
I've gotten a few dozen spammvertised websites removed in my career as a part time BOFH, and my only regret is that the number isn't a lot higher.
Just read through the new material and saw that you are right - the beta doesn't do what you want yet.:(
Still leaves me wondering whether or not you really have to have XP, and if so, it still sounds like he's only weeks away from having what you want, and the price will be a lot lower than the time to do it yourself is worth.
Hmm I usually hate hollywood movies. I almost never bother to see them before they appear on TV, if even then. If a cute female wants to go to one to make out, that's cool, but in that case she's usually cool with making out on my couch with some music on too, and that's even better. So why bother?
But if indeed, as you say, the consensus is that this film is the worst of all time, then my instincts tell me it just might be the first good film out of hollywood in the last 10 years. Dammit, now you've got me interested. I might have to go see it.
Hopefully now more people realise why it's so important to oppose that sort of nonsense in the future.
Anyway, still remains, copyright violation isn't proven by the matching comment, even if proven it's simply an omission of a copyright notice and damages are limited to actual, no punitive damages allowed, responsibility rests on the contributor not the good-faith users, and the code is not part of the current linux tree - hasn't been for several weeks.
I thought there was a catch... I'll have to patch XP myself. Damn.
Well if you say so. But think about it. First is there really anything in XP you have to have? If not roll back to 98 or ME and you can get it for free. The 'preview' works just fine. If you can get your hands on a 95 disk you can do the 'sleek' shell replacement too, even with the unregistered version of 98lite, which means a real workable shell with no bullshit that will run so freaking fast on modern hardware you'll soil your drawers the first time you boot up.
If you really have to have XP, it's only $25 to register 98lite and that gets you the beta of XP, which is all you need to do what you want. And when it finalizes, another $12.50 (returning customer discount) gets you the full version there too, which means you'll be able to keep up with future SPs too, even if a bit slowly.
Realistically, without IE and Outhouse you will rarely if ever have much need for the SPs anyhow. The 'critical' parts are usually workarounds instead of fixes, for mshtml.
I don't know how much your time is worth, but to me, $37.50 is a hell of a lot less than the time it would take me to do the patching myself. Although I suppose you might want to write if off as education, if you're angling for a job as an expert in disassembly and binary editing of Win32 executables... is there really a great job market for game crackers these days? I thought they mostly just did it for prestige.;)
But this stuff was written long before the Disney Enrichment Act was ever dreamed of... did they seriously grandfather everything in? Are you absolutely sure?
Anyway, it was crufty ugly old code that was removed from the current tree before these pics were posted anyway, and as I might have mentioned a few times now, released twice under BSD style licenses. At absolute worst, it's possible the contributor (NOT everyone that's used the code in good faith afterwards) might be guilty of omitting a copyright notice that should have been included, and said contributor (again NOT everyone that's used the code in good faith afterwards) would then be liable for actual (but not punitive) damages, which would probably amount to a symbolic $1 anyway...
The more I learn, the more sure I am that the officers of SCO are either:
1. Total idiots.
2. Engaged in a pump and dump scam.
or
3. Both of the above.
I would, but I don't own them. Good news is the guy that does gives them away for free. He'll give you extra goodies if you pay.
Bad news is, MS has been laying more and more effort into making his work impossible, so his release schedule definately hasn't kept pace with theirs. So if you're running XP, or 2000 with current SPs applied, you'll have to pay even for a beta. The older version works great with 98, ME, or 2k if you are careful not to apply the wrong SP. Since ME sucks my one remaining Windows box is on 98, using the explorer.exe from 95. It's not *nix stable, by any means, but it runs all the games and stuff, is stable enough (2 weeks+ uptimes on a regular basis) and runs lightning fast on hardware that was 'older' when I bought it... anyway I'm happy with it.
Enough jawboning, here's the link you're looking for.
Hate to keep adding posts but it has taken some time to trace this thing. Earliest match yet I found isn't perfect, but in context it's obvious that the exact match in V6 is just the result of some small editing of this earlier version. http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/m alloc.c.html
This is 30 year old code people. Is it even still covered by copyright at all?
Anyone found earlier versions to check? I wouldn't be surprised if this bit didn't originate even earlier.
Slashdot Mirror
What exactly would they gain though?
I don't think we should let our guard down, but all available evidence seems to indicate that they are indeed this stupid.
It doesn't use those words, but they've been used several times elsewhere. It made perfect sense. Remember, they didn't want the old implementation used, they were fed up with it, and the OS/2 team is 'chinese walled' from the AIX team, so even if it wasn't literally intended as a clean room that's what happened.
Subject: Re: XFS vs. JFS
Subject: Re[2]: XFS vs. JFS
See also Q1 on the JFS FAQ from IBM.
Basically the original implementation was too tightly tied to specific AIX features. So a spec was written and given to the OS/2 team, who were completely separate from the AIX team, and they wrote a clean implementation avoiding such problems. This OS/2 implementation, then, was ported to both AIX and Linux. The original AIX implementation is dead, and has been for some time. All implementations in current use are based on the clean room work by the OS/2 team.
IIRC, it was originally developed for AIX, yes, but the OS/2 version was not a port, it was a clean room implementation from the spec sheet instead. And it was the OS/2 code that was the basis for the Linux port. So, in fact, the article is correct.
Obviously it doesn't matter in that sense. But it's a great vindication of all of us that have been skeptical of SCOs claims, because it's exactly the kind of thing we predicted. It's, at worst, a piece of BSD licensed code that should have had a copyright notice preserved that got lost along the way. This isn't the sort of thing you can justify a $3billion lawsuit on, regardless. They should have sent an email and asked for the copyright notice to be replaced, that's what anyone else would have done.
On top of that, it's code contributed by SGI, so they're on the hook for actual damages (not bloody much) but even if SCOs novel ideas about suing users were correct, they couldn't sure more than about 5 people over this anyway. It's a file that's used only to support one of SGIs old machines, it's totally irrelevant to the vast majority of users.
Wrong.
First off there's no such thing as 'IP rights' per se, that's just a rubric used to cover four different sorts of rights; patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secrets.
SCO has no related patents, so that's not an issue. SCO doesn't own the Unix trademark (the Open Group does) and even if they did that's not an issue here. Copyright doesn't prohibit learning from someone elses code, only copying it outright, so it doesn't back up your claim.
A trade secret would come closest - if someone saw the code under NDA and then copied it into Linux, then that person would definately be liable. But only that person, and the trade secret status of the code would be ended.
I actually mentioned this in my submission, but it got cut out.
The 'SCO' slide of their 'own' code shows the Berkley Packet Filter. The Linux code they showed, they claim is an 'obfuscated copy' but it is in fact a well documented clean implementation written from the published spec. The interesting issue is that SCO seems to be under the misapprehension that the BFP is their own code to begin with - that seems to imply that they illegally stripped a copyright notice somewhere along the way.
This is your interpretation.
It's quite possible that a court would agree with you, given the current phrasing of section 4, but it's by no means a foregone conclusion.
The intent of the license, I believe, is as I have said, and this can be demonstrated both from the text of the license itself, and by past actions.
Either way, it's likely an issue that should be made more clear in the next revision of the license.
Definately do run it by a lawyer first, and I'd suggest in addition to your own lawyer I'd run it by Eben Moglen himself. It should be doable, but you certainly don't want to get yourself into a fight with SCO without being absolutely certain of what you're doing.
A transparent obfuscation, and one which can easily proven to a judge in just minutes by pulling out all the official statements in which they refer to it as a 'linux license.'
Incorrect. They are still distributing binaries on a public ftp server. I'm not sure if they still have the source up, but they did apr. two weeks ago, long long after they filed the suit against IBM.
Because the FSF doesn't hold copyright on linux, and does not distribute linux.
Read the license. Section 4 in particular. "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License."
Then go read the binary-only run-only license SCO is selling. Then tell me how that's compatible with the GPL.
Also, explain how SCO can state publically that the GPL is invalid, and simultaneously be modifying and distributing all this GPL software on the other. If, in their opinion (they're wrong but that doesn't matter a bit in this case, we're talking about intent) the GPL is invalid, then it follows that they aren't actually accepting it. If they aren't actually accepting it, however, then they have no right whatsoever to modify and distribute it.
Look at this a little more closely.
It's true, of course, that they have standing to enforce copyright only where they own it. But don't confuse having standing to enforce copyright with license revocation.
In this case no person would be revoking the license except the licensee. The license terms are clear, if you violate them, the license is revoked automatically. Neither the FSF nor anyone else can revoke your license except for you yourself.
But if you do violate, and thereby revoke, your GPL license, then you stand in copyright violation any time you use any GPL code beyond your basic rights under copyright law. Since the violation is copyright infringment, it is up to the copyright holders to pursue legal sanctions if they wish. They have no obligation to, and so you might get away with it, but there is no guarantee - the copyright holder of any GPL code you are infringing on can serve you for it at any time once you revoke your license.
Now this is exactly what SCO has done - they've revoked their own rights to use GPL code, deliberately, and they've made an enourmous amount of noise about it. They're publically stating that they don't think the GPL is valid anyway. Well, if they don't think it's valid, how can they agree to it? If they don't agree to it, they have no right to use any code under it. They have no right to modify and/or distribute Samba, Linux, Gnome, the GNU toolchain... any of it. Both because they stand in violation of the GPL in the case of Linux specifically, and because their public statements make it clear that they do not agree to the GPL terms on the other packages which means that they have no license for those programs.
Now is it possible that a court would rule that the words of the GPL are not properly written to be able to enforce section 4 in this case? Sure. If so then it would be good to find out so the next revision can fix that. But even so the other line still means that SCO is practicing copyright violation in their use of any and all GPL software too. It's not uncommon or unwise to give courts multiple arguments in these cases, and the arguments can even contradict each other, that's not a problem. Look at SCO and IBMs court filings - both take this approach, saying A, then saying even if you reject A, then B, and in the event B is not true, then C must be...
Actually it does. Violate the GPL on a GNU product and refuse to be reasonable when it's pointed out and they'll C&D you to cease modifying and distributing anything the FSF owns copyright on and licenses under the GPL, not just that one program. It's pretty clear in the license that this is the intent, and it's been asserted in the past. So far the violators have always backed down rather than risk their chances in court.
Yes, of course you're right, SCO still has the right, say, to run Samba on their servers.
But the main 'use' they engage in with Samba is modifying it and distributing it in their own system. That 'use' is in fact governed by the licensing which they have forfeited, and is therefore copyright infringement which the Samba team could pursue them for.
The interesting thing here is that the 'license' SCO is trying to bully companies into buying covers only the activities that SCO cannot possibly have any legal basis for pursuing them for in the first place - simply running the software. If you pay them, you get a contract limiting your rights to the ones which you already have, even assuming the strongest form of SCOs case! Under all other assumptions, you would be paying SCO to limit your rights drastically.
It would be absolutely stupid to agree to such a license from them - it gives the buyer nothing, gives SCO a contract which they can later use to sue you, after all the claims they're making now get dropped or dismissed, and you pay them for the privilege!
SCO obviously thinks the people running these companies are incredibly stupid.
To use yes, but since SCO stands in breach of the GPL, they have no longer the right to modify or distribute Samba or any other GPL software.
Actually the GPL does have a provision which automatically terminates the license if its provisions are not honoured.
Apache is not GPL, quite a bit of Free software is under BSD/MIT style licenses actually, but SCO has certainly terminated their own rights to use the stuff that is GPL because of that clause. It's just a matter of who has the money and time to C&D them and be ready to back it up with litigation.
Perens has done a great job of collating what all of us have dug up here.
Short form is, this comment and the code in the second slide go together (although the actual code on the second slide has obviously been tampered with, and will not compile,) and the original work on which it is all based was written by Dennis Ritchie ca. August 1973. It traces not only in the V6 and V5 code I've posted links to, but to V3, the oldest version of Unix which survives for us to read today, and beyond. Several derivatives have been released under BSD licensing, so it occurence in (old) versions of Linux is completely legal.
As many of us have suspected since the first rumours of Caldera/SCOs new business model surfaced, they've got a lot of pattern matches but not the brains to realise that just because a string of characters occurs in a file they bought from the Santa Cruz Operation it doesn't necessarily follow that they have unencumbered copyright on it wherever it might appear.
Surely there is something to what you say, but I would take it with a grain of salt.
So far I've gotten I think 15 copies of the virus, 2 messages letting me know it spoofed me and the attachment was refused.
On the other hand I get a lot of spam. A lot. Very likely because several of my addresses are relatively old. It's gotten to the point where I only bother to report the ones that slip through my filter, and I still send around 10 reports a day.
I have no moral compunction about killing spammers. Torturing them to death in front of their children would be a service to the children, and to humanity.
I'm only half joking.
I've gotten a few dozen spammvertised websites removed in my career as a part time BOFH, and my only regret is that the number isn't a lot higher.
Just read through the new material and saw that you are right - the beta doesn't do what you want yet. :(
Still leaves me wondering whether or not you really have to have XP, and if so, it still sounds like he's only weeks away from having what you want, and the price will be a lot lower than the time to do it yourself is worth.
Hmm I usually hate hollywood movies. I almost never bother to see them before they appear on TV, if even then. If a cute female wants to go to one to make out, that's cool, but in that case she's usually cool with making out on my couch with some music on too, and that's even better. So why bother?
But if indeed, as you say, the consensus is that this film is the worst of all time, then my instincts tell me it just might be the first good film out of hollywood in the last 10 years. Dammit, now you've got me interested. I might have to go see it.
Eh, good point.
Hopefully now more people realise why it's so important to oppose that sort of nonsense in the future.
Anyway, still remains, copyright violation isn't proven by the matching comment, even if proven it's simply an omission of a copyright notice and damages are limited to actual, no punitive damages allowed, responsibility rests on the contributor not the good-faith users, and the code is not part of the current linux tree - hasn't been for several weeks.
Well if you say so. But think about it. First is there really anything in XP you have to have? If not roll back to 98 or ME and you can get it for free. The 'preview' works just fine. If you can get your hands on a 95 disk you can do the 'sleek' shell replacement too, even with the unregistered version of 98lite, which means a real workable shell with no bullshit that will run so freaking fast on modern hardware you'll soil your drawers the first time you boot up.
If you really have to have XP, it's only $25 to register 98lite and that gets you the beta of XP, which is all you need to do what you want. And when it finalizes, another $12.50 (returning customer discount) gets you the full version there too, which means you'll be able to keep up with future SPs too, even if a bit slowly.
Realistically, without IE and Outhouse you will rarely if ever have much need for the SPs anyhow. The 'critical' parts are usually workarounds instead of fixes, for mshtml.
I don't know how much your time is worth, but to me, $37.50 is a hell of a lot less than the time it would take me to do the patching myself. Although I suppose you might want to write if off as education, if you're angling for a job as an expert in disassembly and binary editing of Win32 executables... is there really a great job market for game crackers these days? I thought they mostly just did it for prestige. ;)
But this stuff was written long before the Disney Enrichment Act was ever dreamed of... did they seriously grandfather everything in? Are you absolutely sure?
Anyway, it was crufty ugly old code that was removed from the current tree before these pics were posted anyway, and as I might have mentioned a few times now, released twice under BSD style licenses. At absolute worst, it's possible the contributor (NOT everyone that's used the code in good faith afterwards) might be guilty of omitting a copyright notice that should have been included, and said contributor (again NOT everyone that's used the code in good faith afterwards) would then be liable for actual (but not punitive) damages, which would probably amount to a symbolic $1 anyway...
The more I learn, the more sure I am that the officers of SCO are either:
1. Total idiots.
2. Engaged in a pump and dump scam.
or
3. Both of the above.
I would, but I don't own them. Good news is the guy that does gives them away for free. He'll give you extra goodies if you pay.
Bad news is, MS has been laying more and more effort into making his work impossible, so his release schedule definately hasn't kept pace with theirs. So if you're running XP, or 2000 with current SPs applied, you'll have to pay even for a beta. The older version works great with 98, ME, or 2k if you are careful not to apply the wrong SP. Since ME sucks my one remaining Windows box is on 98, using the explorer.exe from 95. It's not *nix stable, by any means, but it runs all the games and stuff, is stable enough (2 weeks+ uptimes on a regular basis) and runs lightning fast on hardware that was 'older' when I bought it... anyway I'm happy with it.
Enough jawboning, here's the link you're looking for.
Hate to keep adding posts but it has taken some time to trace this thing. Earliest match yet I found isn't perfect, but in context it's obvious that the exact match in V6 is just the result of some small editing of this earlier version.m alloc.c.html
http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/
This is 30 year old code people. Is it even still covered by copyright at all?
Anyone found earlier versions to check? I wouldn't be surprised if this bit didn't originate even earlier.