Infoworld talks to the author of the code!

Posted Aug 22, 2003 13:37 UTC (Fri) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link]

Jay is the author of the other bit of example code - the packet filter stuff. That's a separate issue - one where, at first blush, it's even clearer that SCO is out to lunch. But I want to look a bit closer when I get a chance.

Posted Aug 22, 2003 13:45 UTC (Fri) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link]

It looks like the author of that article has misinterpreted Bruce's press release slightly. The way I read it, it makes it sound that Bruce is claimiing that HE owns the System V code (while he's actually quoting SCO's reaction to his analysis).

You're referring to the BPF code, by the way, which is the second example that SCO presented in their slide show, not the one under discussion in this thread.

Posted Aug 22, 2003 13:58 UTC (Fri) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link]

That article is talking about the Berkeley Packet Filter code, not the atealloc() implementation that Eric Raymond's article references.

I think that Bruce Perens' first (and incontroverted) conclusion was that SCO was completely off their rocker in going after the BPF code, as it had been a reimplementation from the ground up - even though direct use of the code under the BSD license would have been legal (I believe they had dropped the advertising clause by then).

Similarities between the SCO and Linux code in the BPF can be explained by the use of the same spec. I wonder how many other similarities between the two kernels can be explained in the same way? If SCO hasn't been diligent in figuring out which similarities are due to actual copying, and which aren't, they're going to look pretty bad in discovery, not to mention when and if an actual trial happens.