This slide has some of the "System V" source code comments deliberately obfuscated using Greek characters in a Symbol font. You can remove the obfuscation by typing in the Greek text and changing back to a Latin font. The result is:Posted on 08/19/2003 11:00:12 AM PDT by shadowman99
On August 18 at their trade show in Las Vegas, SCO showed code that they claim was copied into Linux in violation of their copyright or trade secrets. The German publisher Heise photographed two slides of SCO's code show and made them public on their news ticker. Heise publishes c't, a popular German computer magazine. These are the slides:
This slide has some of the "System V" source code comments deliberately obfuscated using Greek characters in a Symbol font. You can remove the obfuscation by typing in the Greek text and changing back to a Latin font. The result is:
* 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)We haven't yet located the original source of this code, the next slide is more telling.
We've found the malloc() function this slide refers to. It is included in code copyrighed by ATT and twice released under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (ATT), and again by Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. The Linux developers have a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place.
The ATT source code is here on the net, from a version released around 1979, although we believe that earlier versions exist. The Caldera license letter releasing this code is here. Caldera is, of course, the company that now calls itself SCO. The license very clearly permits the Linux developers to use the code in question. Historical information on why Caldera released the Unix source code to the public is here, and contains some information relevant to the SCO court cases.
The malloc() code also appears in Lions Commentary on Unix, in this form:
Lions' book was first published in the 1980's under non-disclosure and was used as a textbook by universities that had licensed the Unix source. ATT vended a copy of this book to Unix licensees for some time, and a photocopy version was widely circulated among Unix licensees. The original SCO, before its purchase by Caldera, allowed the book to be published without any non-disclosure terms in 1996./* * 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); }
Another version of the algorithm was published in Kernighan & Ritchie's The C Programming Language, Prentice Hall 1978, apparently without restrictions.
Another version of the code is copyrighted by the University of California as part of the BSD Unix system that they produced for the U.S. Army and released as Open Source. That code is also under the BSD license, and appears here in this file released in 1984.
In the early 1990s, ATT's Unix Systems Labs (USL) sued BSDI, a company vending the BSD system, and the University of California, over this and other code in the BSD system. The claims that SCO is making are very similar to the ATT claims. ATT lost. It was found that ATT had copied heavily from the university without attribution, and thus ATT settled the case. In the settlement, the University agreed to add an ATT copyright notice to some files and continue to distribute them under the BSD license. ATT agreed to pay the University's court costs. Some details of the lawsuit are here.
The ATT code that was subject of this lawsuit survives into SCO's current system. SCO's "pattern analysis team" found this code and correctly concluded that it was identical to code in Unix. But they didn't take the additional step of checking whether or not the code had been released for others to copy legally.
Actually, you don't need a "pattern-analysis team" - you can just type lines of the allegedly copied program text into google.com, and google will show you where that code has been posted to the net.
My sources in this analysis are some very helpful members of the Linux community who posted information on the Linux Weekly News web site, and on this page of very useful information on the SCO cases.
" Since you probably didn't read some of the comments, as others have pointed out, these exact comments (and even some source) are in the public domained Unix 7 code, as well as old BSD code (BSD being absolutely in the clear from the settlement). So, this is in no way an example of infringment. Hell code I've wrote w/o ever seeing any of these is similarly constructed and commented.
BSD Comments (malloc), 1986:
/*
* Allocate 'size' units from the given map. Return the base of the
* allocated space. In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
*
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
SGI Comments, 1992 - Present:
/*
* Allocate 'size' units from the given map.
* Return the base of the allocated space.
* In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
Unix 7 (Public Domain) 1979:
/*
* Allocate 'size' units from the given
* map. Return the base of the allocated
* space.
* In a map, the addresses are increasing and the
* list is terminated by a 0 size.
* The core map unit is 64 bytes; the swap map unit
* is 512 bytes.
* Algorithm is first-fit.
*/
Wow, stunning proof, absolutely stunning that public domain source and comments would get used and modified.
--
.Sigmentation fault. Core dumped."
How are you sure?
Look at the slide(s). The allegedly duplicated text are in red. The unduplicated text is in black.
The obfuscation was just a lame attempt to "protect" their own code. But, it doesn't matter, because it isn't relevant to the issue.
On the other hand, the allegedly duplicated text on that same slide has been found in public domain code as early as 1986, pre-dating SCO Unix.
SCO: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...if you wish Linux dead, by all means keep moving forward.
IBM: Let me explain...
SCO: There's nothing to explain. You're trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
IBM: Perhaps an arrangement can be reached?
SCO: There will be no arrangements...and you're killing Linux.
IBM: But if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
SCO: I'm afraid so. I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
IBM: You're that smart?
SCO: Let me put it this way: Have you ever heard or Kernighan, Ritchie, Torvalds?
IBM: Yes.
SCO: Morons!
IBM: Really! In that case, I challenge you to a battle of wits.
SCO: For the kernel? To the death? I accept!
IBM: Good, then untar the source code. [SCO# tar -xvfz code] Inhale this but do not touch.
SCO: [taking a vial from IBM] I smell nothing.
IBM: What you do not smell is our patent portfolio. It is odorless, tasteless, and dissolves instantly in source code and is among the more deadly portfolios known to man.
SCO: [shrugs with laughter] Hmmm.
IBM: [turning his back, and adding the patents to one of the code trees] Alright, where are the patents? The battle of wits has begun. It ends when you decide and we both compile - and find out who is right, and who is dead.
SCO: But it's so simple. All I have to do is divine it from what I know of you. Are you the sort of company who would put the patents into his own source code or his enemies? Now, a clever man would put the patents into his own goblet because he would know that only a great fool would reach for what he was given. I am not a great fool so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you...But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You've made your decision then?
SCO: [happily] Not remotely! Because Linux's SMP code originally came from England(1). As everyone knows, England is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So, I can clearly not choose the code in front of you.
IBM: Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.
SCO: Wait 'till I get going!!
IBM: England.
SCO: Yes! AH! And you must have suspected I would have known the source code's origin,so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me.
IBM: You're just stalling now.
SCO: You'd like to think that, wouldn't you! You've beaten my giant, which means you're exceptionally strong...so you could have put the patents in your own code trusting on your strength to save you, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of you. But, you've also bested my Spaniard, which means you must have studied...and in studying you must have learned that Man is mortal so you would have put the patents as far from yourself as possible, so I can clearly not choose the code in front of me!
IBM: You're trying to trick me into giving away something. It won't work.
SCO: It has worked! You've given everything away! I know where the patents are!
IBM: Then make your choice.
SCO: I will, and I choose...[pointing behind IBM] What in the world can that be?
IBM: [turning around, while SCO switches goblets] What?! Where?! I don't see anything.
SCO: Oh, well, I...I could have sworn I saw something. No matter. [SCO laughs]
IBM: What's so funny?
SCO: I...I'll tell you in a minute. First, lets compile, me from my code and you from yours. [They both compile]
IBM: You guessed wrong.
SCO: You only think I guessed wrong! That's what's so funny! I switched branches when your back was turned! Ha ha, you fool!! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders. The most famous is never get involved in a land war in Asia; and only slightly less well known is this: Never go in against SCO, when intellectual property is on the line!
SCO: HA-HAHA-HAHA AH-HAHA-HAHA (!!) (THUD!)
[IBM removes the blindfold from Linux]
Linux: Who are you?
IBM: I'm no one to be trifled with. That is all you'll ever need know.
Linux: And to think, all that time it was your code that was patented.
IBM: They were both patented. I spent the last few years building up an impressive patent portfolio.
And what's your source to this, and who made that contribution to public domain? Wasn't IBM was it? Another Unix licensee?
Seems that might be something SCO was willing to show in public. No way of knowing, and where are the rest of the pictures and what they show?
Sorry, you'll have to come up with better FUD.
SCO has made a monumental mistake. The burden will now be on them to show conclusive proof that is not refutable. I suspect their "pattern recognition" experts now have a lot of egg on their faces and are scrambling to find the true origin of all the code alleged to be infringing, and are finding that BSD or something similar is the common origin.
I predicted this here:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959564/posts?page=20#20
And of course, you disagreed:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/959982/posts?page=74#74
Now that there is evidence of copying from BSD, all you can do is "be cautious".
How about the burden on these photogs, who only gave us one example from the SCO Festival? Got to be more, right? I don't see anywhere near 80 lines, which is the lowest figure I've heard (going up to 'thousands')
The reference is to a quaint little tounge-in-cheek movie called "The Princess Bride."
Haha! You fool! You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is: Never get involved in a land war in Asia. Only slightly less well know is this: Never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the line!
HA HAHA HA! HA HA HA!
(thud)
See the earlier post in this thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/966726/posts?page=21#21
Or, you can check out my posts to this thread, which I know you have already read and are just pretending ignorance.
Seems that might be something SCO was willing to show in public. No way of knowing, and where are the rest of the pictures and what they show?
SCO has been caught making a monumental error. Can't you come up with better FUD than "what about the rest"? There is no reason to believe that "the rest" is any better than what we have already seen.
I make the same challenge back to you: In the one publicly available example, SCO's claim has been proved wrong. If you believe otherwise, show me the proof. Otherwise, you are just shilling for someone that is only a few steps away from jail for stock fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.