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.
I sincerely hope that is not the situation, but as you probably know my convictions on this issue go beyond this particular case. I'm not convinced yet of the proof you've shown that whoever first supposedly made this publically available had to the right to do so.
Who are you saying it was? BSD? So that makes it guaranteed not SCO? Careful here.
I'm sure there is. And like this, I expect it will be traced to a common origin.
What would really be amusing is if SCO gets caught in the same trap as USL/AT&T tried to sue BSD. They found massive copying of code by AT&T from BSD.
As long as SCO acknowledges copying of code from BSD, that's legal. But, if they lifted any GPL'ed code from Linux (or another GPL'ed code source), they will find themselves in an interesting situation -- which may be why they are trying so hard to "invalidate" the GPL.
Well, yes. It may be ten years too late for SCO to exert control of BSD source code. Linux does contain BSD code in some areas, and if in some future court SCO is given a verdict against Linux, BSD will be the next logical target.
There are two important points to a copyright infringement case. One, that the work in question was copied from a copyrighted work, and more importantly two, that the copier has done so improperly. I believe that SCO vs. IBM will hinge on the second point, though there are some certian provisions for derivative works. They are that minimal creativity is required to meet the originality standard, and that a work can incorporate pre-existing material and still be considered original. A copyright on such a derived work only covers the new work not the original material the work was derived from.
Since it appears to be the exact same code (which will now hopefully you are willing to conceede, at least in this sole example we have), then it certainly came from the same place. Just becuase it now might reside "on the internet" or "in some book" somewhere does not mean it legally got there. There may be a loss of "trade secret" status, still doesn't mean there won't be damages.
Yes, I know this is all about a personal vendetta against people that you don't like. I'll be happy to provide the evidence to anyone that believes otherwise.
'm not convinced yet of the proof you've shown that whoever first supposedly made this publically available had to the right to do so.
Only because you are avoiding it. It's been provided at the very beginning of this thread.
Who are you saying it was? BSD? So that makes it guaranteed not SCO? Careful here.
Fron the article:
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.
This is important: as the rights to Unix passed from AT&T to Novell to SCO to Caldera to TSG (The SCO Group), the effects of actions by the holders of those rights are also passed on. SCO certainly can impose more restrictive terms on their new contributions to their Unix, but they can't lay claim to stuff already released into the public domain by previous "owners" of Unix.
Furthermore:
The malloc() code also appears in Lions Commentary on Unix, in this form:
[code excerpt snipped]
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.
I know you are being intentionally obtuse, but I've grown tired of pointing out the obvious to you. If you are still not convinced, it's only because you are blinded by your personal vendetta.
Thus is IBM's or Sun's UNIX license is perpetual and irrevocable, SCO cannot revoke them. Likewise, I am not sure that it can revisit the cases against BSD and Hurd, because the previous owner had already settled.
I agree with justlurking's answer there.Golden Eagle wrote:justlurking replied:
We haven't yet located the original source of this code...
He is referring to the obfuscated code. Whoever created the Powerpoint slide changed the font to "Symbol".The consensus elsewhere is that it is a comment from SCO's kernel. Since it can't be found elsewhere, it is probably proprietary. But, SCO is not claiming that it is duplicated in Linux.
But I have to wonder about SCO claiming this as "evidence" of infringement or violation of license terms relating to trade secrets. This code is very, very old. I have actually found a copy on the internet that shows includes the copyright notice "Copyright 1973 Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc." That code could actually be in the B programming language, the language used at Bell Labs before the C programming language (the languages are quite similar).
The methods and concept here is even older than that. If you look at object code or machine code, you will probably find substantially similar code as far back as the mid 1960's. The source code will be different (because different programming languages were used back then), but the operation of the code will be substantially similar. This could actually be a translation of IBM code from the System 360 era.
In short, this probably wasn't even a trade secret in 1975. It is entirely possible that this code was copied by an AT&T engineer from a textbook or technical journal back in the early 1970's, and that it is not an original work of anyone at AT&T.
As far as this representing "infringement," I doubt that will stick. Caldera (now SCO) released a whole lot of UNIX source code, including UNIX 5 (where I saw the 1973 copyright) and several other older versions of UNIX. They released this code under the BSD license.
BTW, "malloc" is shorthand for "memory allocator." It is a major part of the code that an operating system uses to manage memory. This code, or code very similar to it, is in basically every operating system since the early 1970's. I would be very surprised if the malloc() code in Windows or even MS-DOS and the Microsoft C libraries for their compile for DOS aren't substantially similar.
Bush2000 wrote:SCO reportedly showed a lot more code to anyone who would sign their NDA. That means basically anyone who writes computer code for a living couldn't look at their show. The people who did look said there were lots of similarities. I'll bet there are lots of similarities.
I would be cautious if I were you about looking at a single function and declaring victory. SCO reportedly showed off a lot of code besides this one function.
But there's a difference between similarities or even common code and copyright infringements and trade secret violations. I doubt that many of the people who looked and saw the similarities know the difference between common code, a copyright infringement and a breach of contract resulting in the loss of trade secrets. I know I haven't heard of anyone who could differeniate those sitatuions who has signed the NDA and looked.
So, while listening to the neophyte SCO customers and sales partners "oooh" and "ahhh" about the similarities might be entertaining, I doubt that it tells us anything about the strength of their case.
However, you would expect the "teaser" to be strong enough to entice some people who might be knowledgeable about the issues, but are borderline on whether they want to sign the NDA. So, you would expect them to show a pretty strong piece of their case at the public part of this show. Instead they showed code that they published and released at least twice.
What was the reason for "may" in that sentence again?
Linux does contain BSD code in some areas...
What if that code originally belonged to SCO, couldn't they potentially claim ownership as the previous case never reached an actual verdict?
Just wondering,
No, because the common origin effectively proves that SCO copied it from the same place as it was copied into Linux. Therefore, it can't be a "trade secret", and there is no basis for a claim of damage.
Inadvertant release into the public domain doesn't necessarily negate claims of ownership. But, if the claimed code was already public domain before claims of ownership can be asserted (i.e. it existed before the claimant even existed), it constitutes "prior art".
Patents have been overturned because prior art was established after the patent was granted. This is a clear-cut case where prior art preempts SCO's claims.
So what's the copyright on this book? Does it allow free distribution of the code under a different product (Linux vs Unix?)
Because I am not an attorney. :) AT&T USL settled with BSD over their "unauthorized UNIX implementation, and settling usually mean that the plaintiff won't sue again for the same thing. I've never heard of a settlement without it.
What if that code originally belonged to SCO, couldn't they potentially claim ownership as the previous case never reached an actual verdict?
The real problem with this case is that the code originally belonged only to AT&T who licensed it out to many different vendors, who in turn produced a variety of derivative works.
I'm not sure that we can easily conclude the code in question was "originally" in SCO, or more correctly in Xenix. For one thing, BSD predates the existance of Xenix by about two years. This means that BSD was derived from UNIX version 6 whereas Xenix was derived from UNIX version 7. Didn't SCO recently release UNIX V6 under a BSD license? What are the ramifications for BSD and in turn Linux if V6 and V7 have been released by SCO itself under an open source license?
All told it's a complicated case, I do not deny that.
It doesn't matter. The code in question was released twice under the BSD license by AT&T and subsequently Caldera (a previous incarnation of today's SCO).
Of course, that was in the part of my posting that you snipped out.
Wild speculations certainly seem to be your specialty, if not this how the GPL servers possibly got hacked.
As far as this representing "infringement," I doubt that will stick.
You're guessing again, but it may not matter if SCO can show that without their "official" release to copy this code, which may not have ever been explicitly granted, anyone who copied it did so illegally. What your mistaken about is that they want to sue everyone involved, every end user, when actually they just want business customers to pay.
However, you would expect the "teaser" to be strong enough to entice some people who might be knowledgeable about the issues, but are borderline on whether they want to sign the NDA. So, you would expect them to show a pretty strong piece of their case at the public part of this show.
Well we've only seen one example so far and no one has shown any absolute proof it doesn't have a Unix parent. All I've really seen is links to underground linux sites and no chronicled or corroborate displays. If I find one I'll check it out.
Why did you even post it then. Your whole defense is scrambled and meaningless. Direct me to a concise corroborated description and I will evaluate. But this unorganized gushing is worthless, and the critical root flows still aren't being adressed.
What is the timeline, and how hard is it to understand why timelines are needed?
I'm sorry CS, I don't follow you here. SCO has filed a suit against IBM, but has not yet challenged the terms of the GPL or any other open source license in court.
However, they have made press releases that conclusively state that the GPL is invalid under U.S. copyright law and that many business and governmental agencies owe them royalties. Neither of these claims have been supported by pending lawsuit much less proven in a court of law. The FTC frowns on the practice of demanding payment based on unproven claims.
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.