Thanks, folks [LWN.net]

Thanks, folks

Posted Aug 19, 2003 22:59 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (subscriber, #2510)
Parent article: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld)

The linked article is based on an LWN article and research posted in response by LWN readers earlier today, plus a few emails. I summarized all of that in a form palatable to the press and sent off to my press list. Thanks, folks, for doing all of the hard work.

Bruce

(Log in to post comments)

Thanks Bruce

Posted Aug 19, 2003 23:48 UTC (Tue) by Arker (guest, #14205) [Link]

You've done a great job of collating the data and getting it in the mainstream eye. We all (humanity) owe you one.

SCO copied Linux code?

Posted Aug 20, 2003 4:15 UTC (Wed) by billyfoss (guest, #14215) [Link]

There seems to be one more similarity to the AT&T vs. BSD case. According to the history of Unix chart on SCO's web site(http://www.sco.com/scosource/unixtree/unixhistory01.html) SCO copied FROM Linux. If you look at the UnixWare Pedigree around Aug 21, 2000, two arrows clearly point from Linux to UnixWare. One is from Linux 2.2.16, and the other is from Linux 2.4.0 Test 1.

I would guess this is related to the Linux Kernel Personality feature added to UnixWare 7. (http://www.sco.com/products/openunix/lkp/faq.html)

"LKP incorporates both the kernel interfaces and a Linux application environment directly into the Open UNIX 8 system."

The answers to the LKP FAQs raise many questions that I don't think SCO wants to answer.

Thanks,
Billy Foss

Disclaimer -
my observations are my own and in no way reflect those of my employer.

Where to find in the Linux kernel.

Posted Aug 20, 2003 8:19 UTC (Wed) by chel (guest, #11544) [Link]

Hi Bruce,

I think you will find the fragment in kernel-2.4.18/linux/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c
It looks to me a part supplied by SGI to support special SGI hardware.
I think there has been some discussion about replacing this code, as it is really ugly. Normally this kind of code gets removed in an environment with constant peer reviews.

Where to find in the Linux kernel.

Posted Aug 20, 2003 14:50 UTC (Wed) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

It's already been removed from the 2.6 code tree.

Thanks, folks

Posted Aug 20, 2003 20:09 UTC (Wed) by jre (guest, #2807) [Link]

The research done by various members of the community was stunningly rapid and effective. Youe analysis was a fitting capstone --well done, sir!
SCO has followed a consistent pattern of responding instantly to every well-publicized criticism with an aggressively self-serving response. It's not a bad PR strategy, as these things go.
But they positively stuttered on this one. It was obviously a body blow.
One can easily imagine the hunted look in Stowell's and Sontag's eyes as they tried to come up with something halfway credible. What I wouldn't give for a film clip!
This would be a good time for a cool counter-response, something along the lines of:
"What SCO calls my 'assertions' were accompanied by a detailed analysis of the code in question. I supplied references and links so that anyone can decide for him- or herself whether I am right. As usual, SCO representatives have responded with a smokescreen, claiming that they know the origin and licensee of the purportedly stolen code, but refusing to name either. Would they care to furnish us with evidence -- any evidence -- for their claims?
Why give them time to recover? Keep them off balance!