Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Analysis of Linux Code that SCO Alleges Is In Violation Of Their Copyright and Trade Secrets.
Perins.com ^ | Bruce Perins (with help from many members of the Linux community)

Posted on 08/19/2003 11:00:12 AM PDT by shadowman99

Analysis of Linux Code that SCO Alleges Is In Violation Of Their Copyright and Trade Secrets.

Bruce Perens <bruce@perens.com>, with help from many members of the Linux community.

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:

/* 
 * 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); }

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.

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.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Extended News; Front Page News; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Technical
KEYWORDS: ibm; linux; microsoft; redhat; sco; techindex; unix
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last
To: Salo
Is this the article you are talking about?

It is, indeed. Thank you!

101 posted on 08/20/2003 8:19:37 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Bush2000
Look, you drooling idiots in the open source cheering section posted a grainy picture of what you claim is part of the evidence in SCO's lawsuit -- and the rest of us are supposed to simply buy your argument that ALL of the evidence is the same?!? If the evidence is so "clear", as justlurking put it, then it shouldn't be a problem to detail ALL of the evidence; otherwise, put down IBM's water and shut the hell up.

If you have evidence that the rest of the code SCO is claiming was "stolen" is any better than what has been publicly revealed, then show it.

The obligation is on you and your sycophants to prove your case. Otherwise, put down SCO's water and shut the hell up.

102 posted on 08/20/2003 8:23:43 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Nice picture, but aren't you supposed to be providing a timeline for this one example (of supposedly many) that you have a single picture of? I don't really see that referenced anywhere, do you?

I'm not obligated to provide anything. However, I have made an attempt to give you enough information to draw your own conclusion. I can't do anything about your refusal to recognize the obvious.

You, on the other hand, have yet to live up to your same demand of providing irrefutable proof of your claims. So, I suggest you follow Bush2000's admonishment to the rest of us.

103 posted on 08/20/2003 8:28:17 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 82 | View Replies]

To: steve-b
SCO, in fact, has a clearly defined obligation to "mitigate damage." In other words, they are actively undercutting any case the might have (which, of course is strong evidence they have no case) by not spelling out how they have been injured.
104 posted on 08/20/2003 9:05:10 AM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
The German government has already told SCO to STFU, based on the low quality of their claims.
105 posted on 08/20/2003 9:11:27 AM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
Fine, just quit jumping up and down claiming this resolves the case, because it doesn't, especially since your examples don't include many other possibilities as to the code herritage and ownership.
106 posted on 08/20/2003 10:35:22 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: eno_
The German government has already told SCO to STFU...

Move to Germany then, if things are so much better. Almost your whole life is socialized there, which would apparently be a big plus to many.

107 posted on 08/20/2003 10:37:39 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
Fine, just quit jumping up and down claiming this resolves the case, because it doesn't, especially since your examples don't include many other possibilities as to the code herritage and ownership.

My challenge stands: if there are "other possibilities", then show your evidence that proves them. Otherwise, please honor Bush2000's admonishment to the rest of us.

108 posted on 08/20/2003 10:51:54 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: Coral Snake
He bought roughly $9000 worth of stock, some of it for less than a penny a piece. Hardly a great showing of trust from a CEO of a company (who before that point had no stock in the company)
109 posted on 08/20/2003 10:54:17 AM PDT by flashbunny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: justlurking
No, SCO has said this code belongs to them. What is your defense? That it was in some book before? So what, unless you got rights to redistribute, you can't. Something you internet pirates never have understood is, possession is NOT nine tenths of the law.

What else? It was in BSD? So what, I haven't seen any evidence that shows the settlement in that case gave complete freedom with Unix code that may be in BSD, freedom to copy, redistribute, etc.

What else? SCO released it under a BSD type license? Does that mean it can be used within GPL? I think the GPL website says no.

What else? That's it, right? Against my better judgement, I outlined your three points for you since you couldn't seem to do it yourself. If you ever have any more info about these now outlined points, you can try to make them.
110 posted on 08/20/2003 11:01:58 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 108 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
SCO published the code under the GPL.

Ignorant, incompetent, or willful. Pick one.
111 posted on 08/20/2003 11:18:56 AM PDT by eno_ (Freedom Lite - it's almost worth defending)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: eno_
Ignorant, incompetent, or willful. Pick one.

Well since they never "explicitly" gave that code away, the fact that IBM may have snuck it in their under their nose will certainly carry relevance in a 'theft' trial. And your argument assumes the US Federal Judge will be sympathetic to your "free software" cause. If he's sympathetic so SCO, you could be in big trouble.

112 posted on 08/20/2003 11:22:32 AM PDT by Golden Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 111 | View Replies]

To: Golden Eagle
No, SCO has said this code belongs to them. What is your defense?

They are mistaken. The code in question is in a system that has already been established as an illicit source of code for SCO's proprietary Unix.

It is also in a version of Unix released into the public domain by Caldera (a predecessor owner of SCO's proprietary Unix).

That it was in some book before?

Since the book was publicly released with permission by a predecessor owner of SCO's proprietary Unix, it's one of the pieces of evidence.

So what, unless you got rights to redistribute, you can't.

Since I don't have the book, I can't comment on that issue. But, you are wasting your time flogging this dead horse, because it is irrelevant in the face of all the other evidence.

What else? It was in BSD? So what, I haven't seen any evidence that shows the settlement in that case gave complete freedom with Unix code that may be in BSD, freedom to copy, redistribute, etc.

The code in BSD was already released under the BSD license. The settlement denied AT&T claims of ownership, after a handful of issues were resolved. That means the code remained available under the BSD license, period. AT&T didn't own it, and therefore had no ownership rights to transfer to SCO. It doesn't prevent AT&T and subsequently SCO from using and redistributing the code originating in BSD, but they can't claim ownership.

What else? SCO released it under a BSD type license? Does that mean it can be used within GPL? I think the GPL website says no.

The GPL does not prevent the co-existent use of BSD code. In fact, there is code in the Linux kernel that has a BSD license. What the GPL says is that the GPL'ed parts of the code cannot be redistributed except under the terms of the GPL. There's nothing that prohibits the use or redistribution of BSD code along with it.

What else? That's it, right? Against my better judgement, I outlined your three points for you since you couldn't seem to do it yourself. If you ever have any more info about these now outlined points, you can try to make them.

I've (and others) have explained them repeatedly, if you simply took the time to read the information that has been provided by me and other constributors to this thread. Your refusal to do so is nothing more than an attempt to face the reality that SCO's claims are bogus.

My challenge remains: if you have proof of that SCO's claims are not bogus, then show it. Otherwise, shut the hell up.

113 posted on 08/20/2003 11:26:04 AM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 110 | View Replies]

To: Coral Snake; Dominic Harr
... Darl McBride WHO HAS NOT SOLD ANY STOCK acording to the "evidence" that you publish and in fact has EVEN BOUGHT SCO stock as late as last year.

Finally found an answer to this one.

Darl can't sell. His options don't vest until:

So he's got a reason to drag this out... but he can't sell (yet).

114 posted on 08/21/2003 4:07:00 PM PDT by TechJunkYard (because... so much is riding on your wires)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-114 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson