| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
Maybe SCO had a pointMaybe SCO had a pointPosted Aug 22, 2003 1:19 UTC (Fri) by ken (subscriber, #625)Parent article: Maybe SCO had a point It's a bit strange to se Eric come to the conclusion he dose. I would say that the two uses of ASSERT makes it quite clear that this is indeed SVr4 code. But how much is this code worth ? 3 bilion Top sectret as it is and so much research that
(Log in to post comments)
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 22, 2003 1:40 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] ken, I think you're missing the point of corbet's article, here. The malloc case may well be fairly trivial, but moving forward, as a community we must not simply dismiss or gloss over these issues.We're not just talking about SCO vs IBM here. Linux will survive whatever happens. But do we want it to survive as a dirty, underground operating system, with the reputation of being used only by those lawless "Napster types", or a beacon to the world of what can be achieved by community effort while respecting laws and people's intellectual property? If indeed you're right ken, and this is indeed Sys V v4 code (contrary to Eric's analysis), the right thing to do is to throw our hands up and admit it, apologise, remove it from 2.4, and take measures to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening again. Perhaps this calls for our own "pattern analysis team". Eric has already said that he and others HAVE the Sys V code (legally, although, they cannot legally publish it). Couldn't someone in possession of it try to find what code might be common to both the Sys V and Linux code, and publish diffs, like Eric did, for us to peer review?
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 22, 2003 2:03 UTC (Fri) by ken (subscriber, #625) [Link] I did not dismiss it but SCO reaction over this is in no way proportional to the "crime" in fact it is completely insane. It would have been no problem at all for them to show what code they was concerned about from the beginning as there is absolutely no trade secret or anything like it in this code. In fact the function of the code is common knowledge.But it's also impossible to protect us from this. how could you possible test something against something that you do not have access to. It's always going to be the copyright holders job of finding the problem after all linux is open they are not. Had they simply post a message saying where the problem was this had been resolved a long time ago.
Apologize? Posted Aug 22, 2003 9:31 UTC (Fri) by kasperd (guest, #11842) [Link] I don't see why I should apologize for something I didn't do. The person who actually "stole" the code (if that is even what happened) should apologize. Those of us who cannot check the code against closed sources, because we don't have access to the closed sources, are in no way responsible for what has happened. SCO is more responsible than the majority of Linux developers and users.
Apologize? Posted Aug 31, 2003 12:54 UTC (Sun) by roncando (guest, #14643) [Link] Well, why not?But more important, a structural approach should be created to (at least try to) guarantee that no copyrichted code can (anymore) show up in GPL-ed software.
Apologize? Posted Sep 8, 2003 1:53 UTC (Mon) by turpie (guest, #5219) [Link] That sounds a nice idea, I am looking forward to hearing how you propose this will should be done. :)How would you know whether the code someone gives you is copyrighted by someone else or not? How do you know if I copied the above sentences from someone else? Without hiring Harry Potter to cast some magic spell there would be no way to tell for sure. ---
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 22, 2003 13:33 UTC (Fri) by alonzo (guest, #2770) [Link] But, you've still got to wonder a bit, about who actually put the code into the linux kernel. Look at who's logo is at the top of the list on the Linux ia64 page:http://www.linuxia64.org/
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 22, 2003 18:24 UTC (Fri) by lsweeks (guest, #14198) [Link] >If indeed you're right ken, and this is indeed Sys V v4 code (contrary to Eric's analysis), the right thing to do is to throw our hands up and admit it, apologise, remove it from 2.4, and take measures to try and prevent this kind of thing from happening again.This sounds correct as it stands. However if this alleged SysV r4 code snippet dates from the period between 1993 and 1998 (which I must admit I doubt, but am throwing up here just as a what if) it may very well be in the public domain as a result of Novell/USL's actions during that period of time when they were suing BSDi and the UC Regents. On the other hand I would be happy and proud to find out that this snippet had been replaced by something better that was innovated by OSS programmers. That may not be possible either since there are very few ways to implement this function according to other analysis I have read.
Easy to replace atealloc Posted Aug 22, 2003 22:00 UTC (Fri) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] Just call the vastly superior and far more modern memory allocators in the Linux kernel. They're about 30 years more modern!
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 22, 2003 9:58 UTC (Fri) by daniel (subscriber, #3181) [Link] I would say that the two uses of ASSERT makes it quite clear that this is indeed SVr4 code.Even if it were, the SVr4 code is clearly derived, not an original work.
Maybe SCO had a point Posted Aug 25, 2003 2:58 UTC (Mon) by glennthigpen (guest, #14417) [Link] It is too early to go saying that the code was stolen. It is also too early to say that the code came from Sys V because of the asserts. The code was written by SGI and has their copyright notice. They evidently think they have the right to release it under the GPL.The code itself is written along the lines of the 32V release, which has no copyright because AT&T failed to include the copyright notices as noted in the Judge's opinion in the USL vs. BSDI case. The asserts themselves are there for debugging according to ESR. It would be just as good an assumption that the coder took the 32V code and modernized it for Linux SMP keeping the same structure as the 32V code. The fact is, we do not know just how SGI derivd the code. And that is a problem between SGI and SCO. This one is not completely clear cut as I would like it to be and we cannot rule out any possible infringement at all. But it is something that would have been remedied very easily if SCO had shown it from the get-go and Linus felt that there was a problem there. That was something that was said from the very beginning. "Show us the offending code, and if it indeed is infringing, it will be removed." The Berkeley Packet Filter code is a completely different horse show, and there is little doubt in anyone's mind (except SCO) that Jay Schulist wrote that himself from published materials. However it seems that SCO claims that the BPF code in Sys V is theirs and it is in their codebase without the BSD copyright notice. Isn't there something about the "unclean hands" doctrine in IBM's response to SCO's lawsuit? Glenn
|
|
||||||||||||