Heise reports from SCO Forum [LWN.net]

Here is a Heise News report (in German) from SCO Forum. An English translation can be had via Babelfish, but, perhaps, the most interesting feature of the article is a couple of photos from Darl McBride's "copied code" presentation; these images are available in enlarged form here and here. The offending code, it seems, is from arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c, which carries an SGI copyright.

to post comments

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:30 UTC (Tue) by laurent (guest, #7539) [Link] (28 responses)

The interesting point is not where this code is coming from in Linux, but rather where it is coming from in UNIX(tm).

And based on the comments in the code if you do a search in Google the first hit you get is:

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/usr/src/sys/sys/malloc.c.html

Based on that I would say that their case looks REALLY weak! :-)

Made my day...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:39 UTC (Tue) by dark (guest, #8483) [Link]

Hmm, I remember discussing this exact same code on slashdot, about a month ago. The conclusion there was that the code was crappy and should be replaced anyway (thanks for the bugreport, SCO!), and that its ultimate source wasn't even from unix but from some book. A pity I don't remember the details.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:39 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (8 responses)

Note that Caldera (which now calls itself SCO) placed that Unix code under a BSD license in 2000. The license is here.

Bruce

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:21 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (3 responses)

I love it. It's the keystone cops maneuver. Those guys are such jokes, in the sickest and saddest way. I heard on "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me" that humans share a greater fraction of their genes with rats than with cats. Me, though, I'm much more embarassed by sharing a large fraction of my genetic code with McBride and Sontag.

The code *may well* be copied just as SCO says. But it would have been *legitimately* copied.

Two possibilities. First, yes, the McBride and Sontag show is really that stupid, and they've just found the copied code without realizing that SCO/Caldera BSD'ed it years ago. Second, they do know that, but are hoping that nobody will notice; not letting anybody who won't side with them see the code until the very last minute is part of their plan to prevent people from figuring out that in fact the code was legitimately copied.

-Rob

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:44 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

Well, that's what their whole farce is about, isn't it? "All your base are belong to us", so no matter where it's copied from, they own it. And so there is no such thing as legitimate copying, no matter what all those nasty evil un-American commie pinko licenses say. What a nice, tidy, convenient hypothesis.

Not.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:20 UTC (Tue) by gups (guest, #14053) [Link] (1 responses)

Regardless of how stupid a show they're putting on, there always are people stupid enough to buy into their crap.

That's why McBride and gang will be making a fortune dumping their previously worthless stocks, and that's probably all they've ever wanted to do.

It's sad.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 18:31 UTC (Tue) by dsmouse (guest, #14180) [Link]

I hope that they DO make a fortune dumpint their stocks. I also hope they get charged with illegal stock market manipulation

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:47 UTC (Tue) by PaulShirley (guest, #14164) [Link]

That document specifically excludes Sys V derivatives, which seems to be what they're currently attacking.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:02 UTC (Tue) by frazier (guest, #3060) [Link] (2 responses)

Bruce,

That license doesn't look GPL compatible to me due to the following:

The following copyright notice applies to the source code files for which this license is granted.
Copyright(C) Caldera International Inc. 2001-2002. All rights reserved.
Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
Redistributions of source code and documentation must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.
All advertising materials mentioning features or use of this software must display the following acknowledgement:
This product includes software developed or owned by Caldera International, Inc.

Provided this is the case (and I'm following licenses correctly), inclusion in a GPL'd system would be in violation of Caldera's license. That noted, once again Caldera/SCO has likely redistributed this code (uh, set of comments) under the GPL for their own Linux distribution.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:19 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

The same code is available under the BSD license without the advertising clause in code copyrighted by the University. I assume this code is subject of the USL vs. BSDI lawsuit and its following settlement. I think it's time for the University to say something about the settlement terms, which aren't entirely public although the results are well-known. We can subpoena them in one of the lawsuits, if necessary. If this came down to attribution and the advertising clause in the Caldera license, they'd have no case anyway.

Bruce

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 17:36 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

"Identical typing errors in the comments as well as unusual ways of writing would have left traitorous traces, to stated Sontag"

" team for pattern recognition had angeheuert, around ten thousands from program lines to through forests. The few code sequences shown apart from the comments were made to a large extent illegible, alleged, in order to protect SCOs author-genuine"

AFAI can read, "they" are making pretty vague, and in a rogue manner, allegations about the copying "mantra"... there is no conclusive statement that garanties that they are talking about this particular algorithm, and not just showing "pattern" like "Identical typing errors" to prove that Linux/OSS are thieves, even without having stealed anything!...

The clear intention, is to confuse the Linux/OSS community, because it is all ears now, as this almost blowing up of the LWN server is prove, and maintain them as far as possible from defeating is master M$, aligned behind "corporate" interests, and at the same time collect a "FEW" dollars from stock speculation and a few really scared users...

In few words, Plain "Criminal" Diversion...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:40 UTC (Tue) by mjr (guest, #6979) [Link] (13 responses)

Yep, what fun. For reference, roughly the same thing is also in 2.11BSD.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:46 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (12 responses)

So, there's talk that this code is actually out of a textbook. Anyone know which?

Bruce

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:50 UTC (Tue) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link] (9 responses)

The slashdot discussion one month ago mentioned the Lion's book.

It seems to be that one:

Lion's Commentary on UNIX with Source Code
by John Lions and Dennis M. Ritchie, ISBN 1573980137

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:06 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (8 responses)

Can someone with the book verify that the text actually appears, and what page it's on? FYI, here is the Amazon link for the book. Some of the precious Unix source code appears there. I wonder if SCO will sue Amazon. :-)

Bruce

Reference to the Lions book

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:11 UTC (Tue) by cdamian (subscriber, #1271) [Link]

I don't understand japanese, but this seem to refer to the code and the Lion book: Unix 6th Edition Kernel Source Code and malloc.c

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:20 UTC (Tue) by LenZ (subscriber, #1051) [Link]

I don't have have the Lion book, but a german translation of Maurice J. Bach's Design of the Unix Operating System.

FWIW, It does include a quite similar looking pseudocode example for the malloc() routine:

algorithm malloc   /* algorithm to allocate map space */
input:   (1) map address  /* indicates which map to use */
         (2) requested number of units
output:  address, if succesful
         0, otherwise
{
    for (every map entry)
    {
        if (current map entry can fit in requested units)
        {
            if (requested units == number of units in entry)
                delete entry from map;
            else
                adjust start address of entry;
            return (original address of entry);
        }
     }
     return(0);
}

Not sure, if this is helpful in any way...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:24 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (3 responses)

Well, the Lions book contains all of the Unix v6 kernel code, and it
wasn't quite legal until Caldera blessed it in 1995-1996-ish, after which
it was officialy published.

The book is divided into two parts -- the bare code listing, and the
commentary. This code appear in line 2522, sheet 25 of the code listing.
The commentary is on page 5-2.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:30 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (1 responses)

As it appears in the Lions book:

 
/* 
 * Allocate size units from the given 
 * map. Return the base of the allocated 
 * space. 
 * Algorithm is first fit. 
 */ 
malloc(mp, size) 
struct map *mp; 
{ 
   register int a; 
   register struct map *bp; 
 
   for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) { 
           if (bp->m_size >= size) { 
                   a = bp->m_addr; 
                   bp->m_addr =+ size; 
                   if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0) 
                       do { 
                           bp++; 
                           (bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr; 
                       while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size); 
                   return(a); 
           } 
   } 
   return(0); 
}

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 18:03 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

Oops, I missed a closing brace in this line:

 
                       while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);

Should be:

 
                       } while((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:32 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

Oops, it was the Santa Cruz Operation that blessed it, not Caldera.
Caldera didn't get the rights until later, then they opened it all under
the BSD-style license.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:28 UTC (Tue) by kunitz (subscriber, #3965) [Link]

It gets more funny, in the foreword, which you can read at amazon.com the author thanks the "old" SCO for allowing the publication of the book.

The book has been published in April 1996 and has been declared UNIX book of the Year in 1996 by Unix Review's. The slashdot discussion mentioned, that the book contains a copyright notice by SCO.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:17 UTC (Tue) by lorenb (guest, #14166) [Link]

I have this book and in Chapter 5. The book doesn't have pages per say. This is what's the index:

malloc:

line page
------------
2528 5-2
2534 5-2
2535 5-2
2536 5-2
2537 5-2
2538 5-2
2539 5-2
2542 5-2
2543 5-2

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:28 UTC (Tue) by daw (guest, #14169) [Link] (1 responses)

A very similar malloc implementation also appears in Kernighan & Ritchie's "The C Programming Language," arguably the most common computer programming textbook ever. I have the second edition (1988), and the code is on p. 187, but I imagine it's in the first, 1978, edition as well.

K&R's version uses a linked list of structs to store the free pointers, while the ancient unix version uses an array of pointers, but the structure of the code snippet is otherwise the same, and it seems likely to me that it had a common ancestor.

FWIW, "The Design and Implementation of the 4.4BSD Operating System" (McKusick et al., 1996) also has a short discussion of the kernel malloc implmentation (no code), which mentions the "first-fit" algorithm.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 23:30 UTC (Tue) by Jocko (guest, #14206) [Link]

K&R First Edition (1978) has this code on page 175. Sounds like it's the same as the
described Second Edition code.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:43 UTC (Tue) by dwalters (guest, #4207) [Link] (2 responses)

Intersting. If you look at the index page for that web site, it seems to indicate that the code in question originates from a version of Unix from 1979!

I don't know if that's good or bad, but it sure looks the same. Can someone unlighten us on the pedigree of the "32V Kernel", from which this code seems to originate?

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:16 UTC (Tue) by haabendal (subscriber, #527) [Link]

> Can someone unlighten us on the pedigree of the "32V Kernel", from which this code seems to originate?

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/32VKern/

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:17 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

This article should answer many questions about the 32V code....

Why Caldera Released Unix: A Brief History
by Ian F. Darwin
03/01/2002

Where is the code ?

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:37 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Actually they dont show any "SIDE BY SIDE", at least in this article, code from linux and from Sytem V...

What they show is a similar "header comment" and everybody is assuming is a piece of code that appeared in a book.

Far as is showed, THERE IS NO EQUAL CODE !

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:43 UTC (Tue) by mk270 (guest, #4485) [Link] (20 responses)

Bizarrely, there is a note in the SysV screenshot where half the comment is transliterated into Greek - a one-for-one substitution of Roman letters for Greek ones yields perfect English text (relating to the renaming of the malloc() function and its friends). Probably just a font error.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:53 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

Are you sure that's not delibrate obfuscation, by someone who isn't very technical in nature?

Would someone please type the entire Greek paragraph in and give us a font mapping? Something that demonstrates how the font is mapped back, so that there is a trace from the SCO slide to real code, would be useful. I could really use this for a news editorial, and have no idea how to type in Latin.

Bruce

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:00 UTC (Tue) by laurent (guest, #7539) [Link]

From LinuxToday... (credit Fred Flintstone)

--- snip ----
Very clever of SCO to obscure part of their comments with greek
letters. Someone might never figure out that it says:

"As part of the server evolution towards modular naming,
the functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc
and rmfree. Compatibility will be maintained by the following
assembled code: (also see mfree/rmfree below)"

Does this mean something to someone? Why bother writing it with greek
letters?
--- snip ----

I hope I'm not infringing on any copyright by copying this here :-)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:02 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link]

Ok, here it is in ASCII/latin1:

"As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the
functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code:
(also see mfree/rmfree below)"

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:09 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link]

Would someone please type the entire Greek paragraph in

Sure. It looks as though they just switched the code in question into the standard "Symbol" font:

*As part of the kernel evolution toward modular naming, the
*functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
*Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembly code:
*(Also see mfree/rmfree below)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:13 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] (9 responses)

All they did is to change the font to Symbol. (Why? I have no idea...if they were trying to keep something secret, did they think no one could read those funny foreign letters...?) Or maybe now they'll sue all of us who read and transliterated them under the DMCA for encryption-breaking...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:25 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link] (8 responses)

That's not a joke.

Skylarov was jailed for breaking encryption of similar security, under the DMCA.

Those of you who changed the Symbol font back are in fact now federal criminals under USA law. You may wish to flee this free country now.

-Rob

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:59 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] (2 responses)

I guess I've got an illegal decryption device embedded in my head then... I just read the text as it was. (Thanks to whoever made the Symbol font for making the transliteration pretty easy!) How am I supposed to keep from violating the DMCA with such an embedded technology...? No, don't answer that. :-)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:35 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

By trafficing in your head, you are a federal criminal.

The only way to be safe is to cut it off and destroy it before the feds look at you.

(And, yes, the DMCA really is that silly.)

-Rob

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 19:24 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

I guess I've got an illegal decryption device embedded in my head then...

I've got a parser in my head, and I'm getting a syntax error on line 2 of the second slide.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:08 UTC (Tue) by gups (guest, #14053) [Link]

Hahahaha...

That's funny.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:16 UTC (Tue) by shadowman99 (guest, #14165) [Link]

Actually I would think SCO would be in trouble with the DMCA before anyone for violating copywrite law by changing the text as originally written. They have moddified the character set without permission of the author.

By changing code in an effort to obfuscate they have done the very thing they accuse our community of.

Bonk Bonk on the head!

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 18:14 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

So besides a Diversion, all this show could be a trap to !!!...

With the "criminal" minds that are feading SCO more than clue cards, its no wonder!...

What is not good, is that they can predict Linux/OSS movements...

I belive a "REALLY BIG PUSH" to LSB to completly cover the Desktop, would suprise and scare them to dead!

If all this sound to you as nosense, than you better think again, because you are confused about how "fox smart" business minds work.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 18:44 UTC (Tue) by dbhost (guest, #3461) [Link] (1 responses)

to repeat a quote I have heard attributed to Krusty The Clown from The Simpsons while in Mexico.

"Everything's legal in Mexico. It's the American way!"

If I have misquoted, or given credit to the wrong mouth that uttered that wisdom please correct me...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 21, 2003 7:19 UTC (Thu) by bajw (guest, #11712) [Link]

I did a Google on the phrase, and the results showed that the phrase was
"Hell, everything's legal in Mexico. It's the American Way." Google also
indicated that it was said by Uncle Jimbo of Southpark.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:56 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (1 responses)

Probably just a font error.

Probably not. My guess is that switch to a Greek font was a deliberate, if lame, attempt to obscure the code. If the code in question was just flashed up on the screen for 15 seconds, you probably wouldn't have had time to figure out what that obscured section meant. I know it took me longer than that to read it. They probably weren't expecting anyone to take a picture of the screen for later perusal; otherwise they wouldn't have chosen code that (as some of the other posters here have pointed out) is easily identified in its origin not to be proprietary to SCO.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:26 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

...unless they don't *have* any copied code which isn't easily identified in its origin as not to be proprietary to SCO....

-Rob

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:56 UTC (Tue) by forthy (guest, #1525) [Link] (2 responses)

According to the Heise article, SCO made portions of their own code (which is not identical
to Linux sources) "unreadable". That probably refers to the obfuscated text, which is IMHO
quite readable (no, that's not greek to me ;-). Well, they should have tried harder. Elfish or
Klingon at least. And they should also have tried harder than to dig out ancient Unix version
5 code they themselves (as Caldera) put under BSD license a few years ago.

Furthermore: Dear SGI, kmalloc() should be used to allocated kernel memory, no need to
brew something yourself.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:13 UTC (Tue) by Soruk (guest, #2722) [Link] (1 responses)

Klingon isn't really all that hard...

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 21:42 UTC (Tue) by tjc (guest, #137) [Link]

Klingon isn't really all that hard...

The Tengwar appears to be a bit more complex, although very interesting.

It would be nice if there were an xfonts-tengwar package in Debian. :-)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:02 UTC (Tue) by dizzl (guest, #5521) [Link]

Indeed. It reads:

* As part of the kernel evolution towards modular naming, the
* functions malloc and mfree are being renamed to rmalloc and rmfree.
* Compatibility will be maintained by the following assembler code:
* (also see mfree/rmfree below)
* /

Maybe that helps in locating the textbook...

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 14:49 UTC (Tue) by Spike (guest, #14160) [Link] (7 responses)

This same code is found the the source that Caldera/SCOX licensed under the BSD style license a few years back.. http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/malloc.c.html

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:25 UTC (Tue) by nx_in (guest, #14162) [Link] (1 responses)

Yes . Check this out ..
from :

Dion L. Johnson II - dionj@caldera.com
Product Manager and one of many open source enthusiasts in Caldera Intl.

Paul Hatch - phatch@caldera.com
Public Relations Manager at Caldera International

http://www.lemis.com/grog/UNIX/

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:40 UTC (Tue) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link]

The title of the post is tremendously poignant considering the present crusade against the GPL...

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:48 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link] (4 responses)

One problem: When Caldera opened the old Unix code, it was under a BSD-style copyright *with advertising clause*. This makes it incompatible with the GPL which that file in the Linux code claims to be under.

For those not familiar with this incompatibility: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/bsd.html

So rather than a defense of "Caldera already opened the code", we have to go back to a defense of "that code has been out there for years anyway", which is the defense ESR has apparently been working to document for IBM. http://newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=03/05/25/1240238

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:38 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

Don't throw a fit over the advertising clause. I doubt the GPL copyright holders in the kernel would sue about it in this case. And I think they would be happy to give you a written exception to the GPL for its use. If it mattered.

Bruce

Didn't Caldera/SCOX open source SYS V v7

Posted Aug 19, 2003 17:20 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

Actually I shouldn't have emphasized the GPL incompatibility so much as the basic noncompliance with the Caldera license. See: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105607172529951

On the other hand... http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-kernel&m=105611216326103

out there

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:47 UTC (Tue) by ncm (guest, #165) [Link] (1 responses)

rfunk said, "we have to go back to a defense of 'that code has been out there for years anyway'".

That doesn't work: copyright isn't the same as trademark. Rather, we (IBM, really) will need to rely on the Regents of U.C vs. USL agreement granting U.C. full rights to that code as it appears in 2.11 BSD and up. UCB dropped the advertising clause requirement sometime after that. SCO has no proprietary rights to anything that appears in the last BSD release. This is not (as is often reported) because they didn't write much of it, but rather because they were in such hot water over having stolen huge amounts of BSD code, they had to give up rights to the code they had written, or lose the right to sell UNIX at all.

out there

Posted Aug 19, 2003 17:33 UTC (Tue) by rfunk (subscriber, #4054) [Link]

That doesn't work: copyright isn't the same as trademark.

Good point, though actually I was thinking trade secret, not trademark. And SCO has been including trade secret misappropriation as part of their accusations, though it's not clear to me which one they're thinking of with this code.

Rather, we (IBM, really) will need to rely on the Regents of U.C vs. USL agreement granting U.C. full rights to that code as it appears in 2.11 BSD and up.

Except as Bruce has pointed out, we don't know the full terms of the agreement. Are you saying that UC won full rights to everything in 2.11BSD? That's the first I've heard of that.

UCB dropped the advertising clause requirement sometime after that. SCO has no proprietary rights to anything that appears in the last BSD release.

Yes, but this code doesn't appear in the last BSD release. (2.11 is quite a bit older than 4.4.)

Another mention of the code 1984: newsgroup: net.bugs.4bsd

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:03 UTC (Tue) by cdamian (subscriber, #1271) [Link]

This comes from google: Google Result

Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site allegra.UUCP
From: jpl@allegra.UUCP (John P. Linderman)
Newsgroups: net.bugs.4bsd
Subject: 4.2 /etc/pstat -s is broken
Message-ID: <2551@allegra.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 26-Jun-84 10:05:43 EDT
Article-I.D.: allegra.2551
Posted: Tue Jun 26 10:05:43 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Jun-84 03:22:58 EDT
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill
Lines: 203

Makes me wonder...

Posted Aug 19, 2003 15:21 UTC (Tue) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link] (1 responses)

1) Was this they only information they disclosed? If not, are there more pictures?
2) Is this the same code which "experts" reviewed under NDA before stating it was likely that code had been directly copied?
3) Do they have any evidence to show that the code was not copied into Unix and that the version in Linux was taken from Unix and not BSD?
4) What about the release of older versions of Unix under the BSD license? Is this file old enough to be covered by that?
5) What about the BSD settlement? Is there a chance we will get to learn more details about the terms?

If this is the damaging evidence they keep talking about they should be worried about their case.

Makes me wonder...

Posted Aug 19, 2003 19:51 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

But their business is really pump&dump, and protect the master as in the last M$ vs DOJ settlement, of wich Boies was the specialist...
As hard as it must sound to many, law in the hands of the powerfull is wholly a tool that can be a weapon, and not the letter of justice...

When all the dust settles, all the harm and FUD that there is to be done, would already be done, all the dumps that there is to be done, would already be done..., and with a major DRM/paladium lock up around the corner, guess who gets to win ?

SCO is right now just the prospect of a ghost,... they give every indications of knowing it, and are just playing a show as a matter of diversion for clearing the bosses... and they are PRETTY DAMN GOOD AT IT.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:07 UTC (Tue) by rickfdd (subscriber, #4519) [Link] (1 responses)

So this evidence is extremely damaging to SCO's case. Why is the stock price not yet tanking?

If only Disney would BSD license one image of Mickey Mouse, we could all make our own "derivative" cartoons staring the damn rodent.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:37 UTC (Tue) by rknop (guest, #66) [Link]

I'd love to see those.

The *abuse* that the rodent would take.... :)

-Rob

My write-up of your research

Posted Aug 19, 2003 16:41 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (2 responses)

You folks have done a great job today. I've written up your research and am sending it to my press list right now. It's at this link .

Thanks

Bruce

My write-up of your research

Posted Aug 19, 2003 20:16 UTC (Tue) by mmarq (guest, #2332) [Link]

Pretty damn good job of gathering and synthesis for 1 day, i must say... and all the Linux/OSS community should be thankfull to...

I belive, SCO must be pretty amazed to, specially thinking as i do, that when they mentioned thounsands, millions of lines of code, they could be preparing to feed more than one of this "DIVERSIONS" a week!

My write-up of your research

Posted Aug 20, 2003 7:35 UTC (Wed) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link]

This also happens to demonstrate very nicely why SCO has been so reluctant to identify which wrongdoing, exactly, they are accusing us of. Other than that it involves "IP" and "Contract law".

They know fully that they have no evidence whatsoever that will stand up to even the briefest scrutiny.

This incident demonstrates that. As soon as they release the smallest possible hint of evidence, two slides totaling maybe 40 lines of codes, thousands of nerds descend upon it, dive into Google, and appear minutes later waving embarassing references to fucking K&R (If there is ONE place for code to appear to rule out that said code can be called a "Trade Secret" then it is K&R), aswell as the equally unwelcome fact that SCO themselves BSD-licensed the code in question.

I predict that the same, or something very similar will happen to all other "evidence" that SCO publish. Furthermore I am fairly sure that SCO is aware of this.

There's no other plausible explanation for their behaviour.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 20, 2003 0:39 UTC (Wed) by Jhebbard (guest, #14207) [Link]

unless the NDA is just a subterfuge to give them time to work an extortion racket - and if it never goes to court they will never be proven guilty - the final issue depends on the judge and his/her attitude towards justice. . As an Engineer (me) sees it, the main purpose of the civil tort system is supposed to be justice, not punishment. Therefore any court interested in justice will throw SCO's case out because the NDA is obviously designed to prevent the defendants from remedying the tort. For example, thousands of lines of offending code could be removed from the Linux kernel and replaced with more ellegant solutions if SCO would only file a proper complaint.

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 20, 2003 1:18 UTC (Wed) by avanaardt (guest, #14209) [Link] (1 responses)

As a newbie, just a word of thanks to all you Linux guys - amazing work of the highest quality. Thanks guys!

(Is it just me, but why do Linux people seem to have a sense of humor sadly lacking in other areas of the industry?)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 20, 2003 7:59 UTC (Wed) by stuart (subscriber, #623) [Link]

Precisely because they aren't in those other areas of the industry :-)

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 20, 2003 8:52 UTC (Wed) by keithl (guest, #14228) [Link] (1 responses)

Non programmer here. I looked at ftp.kernel.org for the ate_utils.c
file. I note that ate_utils.o appears in .../arch/ia64/sn/io/Makefile
between 2.4.3 (March 30, 2001) and 2.4.4 (April 28, 2001). The
ate_utils.c file itself shows up in that directory between 2.4.18
(Feb 25, 2002) and 2.4.19 (Aug 2, 2002), complete. The routine
shown in the article, atealloc(), shows up in 2.4.4 as a single
define in .../arch/ia64/sn/io/pcibr.c:

#ifdef __ia64
#define rmallocmap atemapalloc
#define rmfreemap atemapfree
#define rmfree atefree
#define rmalloc atealloc
#endif

While in 2.4.19 it is in a bunch of places, still associated with
variations of pcibr.c. Perhaps someone with far more code
understanding than I can explain what all this code is for, and
how the code got in there, who wrote it, and why the .o is
mentioned in the 2.4.4 makefile over a year before the actual
code arrives, and maybe even how the rmalloc [that is, atealloc]
works when atealloc isn't there yet?

No agenda here, I'm just an egg wondering how all this works, so I
can pontificate at length to the two or three folks out there who
know even less than I do. Perhaps some kernel savvy individual
might inform us what this all means. The cool thing about Linux
is that almost all of this is documented in public somewhere, if
you know where to look, and some individual is always ready with
a clue-by-four to enlighten the rest of us.

Keith

Heise reports from SCO Forum

Posted Aug 20, 2003 17:18 UTC (Wed) by Ross (guest, #4065) [Link]

You made me think of something... this code is only used on IA64!

How many people are actually using that code? Not many I would imagine.
SCO's threatened sue-the-users campaign would probably have trouble
locating any victims.