Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

"Stolen" SCO Linux Code Snippets Leaked

CmdrTaco posted more than 11 years ago | from the we-gotta-figure-this-one-out dept.

Linux 1180

stere0 writes "An article (in German) published on the German IT news site Heise includes two pictures (1, 2) of the "stolen" source code SCO claims to be theirs. Part of the first screenshot has been scrambled, the font has probably just been changed to Symbol; can anybody decipher it? I searched for the code snippets on Google. The code does indeed come from the kernel; the photographs show what seems to be lines 88-102 and 109-123 of /arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c from the 2.4 kernel tree. " Update: 08/19 16:39 GMT by M : LWN has a nice piece tracing the origins of the disputed code, and showing that SCO is simply lying.

cancel ×

1180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

oh no! (4, Funny)

krisp (59093) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733515)

Quick, bust out vi and change all the variable names!

Re:oh no! (0, Troll)

FrankBlues (65853) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733562)

Hey! Both snippets use printf!!!

How would that be, SCO claims ownership of printf?

Official notice (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733578)

PoorPost Form v. 0.1

Your post has been moderated positively but that moderation must have been in jest or error. Your post sucks. Please review this form to understand the weaknesses in your post and how to produce higher quality posts in the future.

[] Your post was modded funny but is not really funny. This is because:
() You post simply used M$ instead of MS
() You went back to beating the Windows security dead horse
() You made a tired SCO joke
() You made a Jon Katz joke (who?)
() MS blowz, linux rules (or a variant)
() You made an unoriginal joke about Slashdotting (servers turning to powder, melting, etc.)
() Other (please comment here: )

[] Your post is modded insightful, informative, or interesting. In fact it
is neither of the three. This is because:
() You stated the obvious
() You simply tossed out lots of five-dollar words
() It was in response to a poorly-written post or troll
() You copied text from a previous post that really might have been one of the three I's
() You simply criticized Microsoft without making it funny
() It is bloated with unnecessary technical claptrap
() All you did was pose questions (like a stoner)
() All you did was pose questions (like a lawyer)

[*] Your post may be rated too highly in general for the following reasons:
(*) You are an asterisk who has, knowing the story's release time in advance, pounceposted to get first p0st and get modded up early
() You are one of the editors and are getting your ass kissed
() One of your fans has weighed in for you
() One of the editors has blessed it with an "underrated"

[] Additional comments:

Thanks for posting! Better luck next time! :)

( This form is currently in alpha and suggestions for its improvement are
always welcome. )

Re:oh no! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733773)


I'll quickly bust your mother's cunt with my huge cock.

Re:oh no! (5, Funny)

BohKnower (586304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733776)

Every college student knows that you must change comments and variable names of the code you copy.

How could the IBM engineers miss it.

sco rules (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733526)

the end is near

I can decipher it! (0, Insightful)

Dimwit (36756) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733529)

I can decipher it using my magical deciphering powers known as "being able to read Greek."

(Please note that I can not, in fact, read Greek. It was more just to point out that it's not, you know, Symbol font.)

Re:I can decipher it! (1, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733634)

(Please note that I can not, in fact, read Greek. It was more just to point out that it's not, you know, Symbol font.)

Yes, dimwit, it is the Symbol font. The Symbol font consists primarily of Greek letters.

Re:I can decipher it! (1)

Dimwit (36756) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733733)

*grins* Boy is my face red. Sorry about that.

Re:I can decipher it! (2, Informative)

terraformer (617565) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733648)

It's not actually Greek. It is English using the Greek alphabet.

Re:I can decipher it! (5, Informative)

Fractal Law (122229) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733679)

The thing is that it actually is the Windows Symbol font. I can read Greek (Ancient Greek at least) and while the alphabet used is the Greek one all that somebody did was highlight the text in question and change the font to Symbol, which is what Windows calls its Greek font.

In other words it's English written using the Greek alphabet. Why somebody would do something so silly puzzles me, however.

Translation of "symbol" section: (5, Informative)

*igor* (34968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733532)

* 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)
*/

SCO IS ON TEH SPOKE!!!~`1 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733609)

Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (3, Interesting)

johny_qst (623876) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733665)

As all that they are demonstrating is a few lines of comments from their system v code where is the IP infringement? Comments may be part of the source, but am I wrong in assuming that comments are not included in the 'IP' concept that is being argued in SCO's case? If I copied just the notes in the margins of one of davinci's notebooks into the margins of my copy of 'stranger in a strange land 2: a parody by me' would that be infringement? Is SCO's claim really this weak, or are we really not going to see Code before IBM's lawyers drag it out of the SCO lawyers in an actual courtroom?

Re:Translation of "symbol" section: (4, Informative)

Yohahn (8680) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733689)

Others agree, they've been chatting about this on Linux weekly news:

see here [lwn.net]

SCO Text translated for the lazy (1, Redundant)

limited (17574) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733534)

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

Symbol Code (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733543)

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

Location in Sys 7 (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733547)

See Sys 7 1979 location [tuhs.org]

Re:Location in Sys 7 (5, Interesting)

albalbo (33890) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733699)

Both snippets relate to the first function in that file - malloc(). It's a simple malloc implementation.

The second Heise picture is the body of the function, pretty much. There is now an SMP spinlock in there, and what appears to be some assertion on the size of the memory area (some kind of bigmem check?). Also, the for loop is initialised with a function, which is probably also something memory related, again possibly bigmem related.

So, it relates to the areas SCO said it did. I doubt very much they can claim the code was copied from SysV wholesale. I would be surprised they could even claim that the three changed lines from the ancient Unix are not obvious - e.g., for it to work in SMP you basically need a lock. Although, it would be surprising for the locking mechanism to be identical - so they perhaps have some point here. But, the majority of the function cannot be claimed as copied, surely....

I'm not the only one who noticed this... (5, Interesting)

stere0 (526823) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733553)

The Gentoo People [gentoo.org] and an AC the previous SCO thread [slashdot.org] beat me to it. There's a very interesting discussion over at LWN [lwn.net] , in which Bruce Perens points out that Caldera has put that code under a free licence.

Re:I'm not the only one who noticed this... (1)

frodo from middle ea (602941) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733605)

So then , why are they suing IBM, if a company's IP is leaked by one of its own employees, or an ex-employee of the ormer company wich owned the IP, then shouldn't it sue caldera or the employee who leaked the code in to the kernel ?
what's IBM got to do with this ?

Re:I'm not the only one who noticed this... (4, Informative)

gotan (60103) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733739)

There's also a very informative lkml thread [theaimsgroup.com] about this and it's already been removed from the source tree [bkbits.net] , but apparently not because of copyright issues but because it was just "ugly [theaimsgroup.com] as hell [theaimsgroup.com] ".

Strange...... (2, Insightful)

AndyFewt (694753) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733554)

Strange how they still have to hide their little snip of code IF its exactly the same as the Linux one :X Right now that only proves the comment is almost the same.

In the ia64 directory? (4, Interesting)

mgessner (46612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733556)

Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?

If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?

Legally (1)

w.p.richardson (218394) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733592)

Does the usage matter, or is the presence alone enough to infinge SCO's patents? Seems frivolous, I agree.

Re:Legally (1)

mgessner (46612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733680)

I don't know... but it seems unlikely that they could enforce any kind of license if a user didn't even download the source, but just had the kernel installed on their 32-bit machine.

Yes, the source tree may have contained the offending file(s) during compilation, but if they weren't used to build the kernel image, how is that copyright infringement??

Re:In the ia64 directory? (1)

heh2k (84254) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733652)

Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?

no, it is only for the ai64 ("itanium") port. it has nothing to do w/ alpha, ppc64, mips64, sparc64, etc.

If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?

it wouldn't matter if you used it. it would matter if you distributed it. ianal, though.

Re:In the ia64 directory? (1)

mgessner (46612) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733738)

Right, then.

Well, if you have the kernel but didn't install the source, then what??

So how can they say they're going after the **users** and not the **distributors**?

Exactly! (4, Insightful)

Thud457 (234763) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733657)

Am I incorrect in understanding that this is for 64-bit implementations of linux?

If so, how can SCO demand that we give them money for code that's distributed but that 99% of linux users ARE NOT USING?

This is exactly why they want you to sign your life away by signing a NDA before they will show you the code. They want to use this to bludgeon people into settling BEFORE IT GETS TO COURT . They are not interested in legitmately rectifying the situation.

IANAC (1)

phunhippy (86447) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733566)

I Am Not A Coder

that means all levels of nothing to me..

someone please explain it :)(not that all of you were not going to explain it...)

Re:IANAC (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733660)

The code in question in the Linux kernel is simply a function to allocate a block of space from a pool, looking for the first fit.

If an undergraduate experienced in C were asked to do the same problem the code would look very similar. Hardly a trade secret. Others have commented that this appears in earlier malloc libraries. Perhaps there's the common ancestry, way before SCO existed.

Hardly enterprise class stuff. They had better have much much better examples or their case is toast.

Re:IANAC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733683)

not a coder! yer not welcome 'round these parts, ye hear?

first post (-1, Offtopic)

quiklilo71 (557049) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733567)

and the winner is....

This should change a lot! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733569)

First post too!
Too bad I can't remember my username/password, oh well.

Re:This should change a lot! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733579)

YOU FAIL IT

This.. (5, Funny)

Nick Fury (624480) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733575)

Still doesn't prove shit for SCO's claim other than digital cameras are getting smaller and easier to hide.

That's cyrillic... (0, Redundant)

TopShelf (92521) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733582)

If I read correctly, the "symbol" is just Cyrillic script, but English words:

"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 assembly code:
(also see mfree/rmfree below)"

Re:That's cyrillic... (0)

TheScienceKid (611371) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733612)

no... it's not. I am familiar with cyrillic, see the other posters pointing out that it is in fact greek, which I believe the Gentoo guys figured out. This has been a Public Information Broadcast by the Monster Raving Looney Party. Peace, Out.

Re:That's cyrillic... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733631)

That's funny, that Cyrillic sure looks like Greek.

Re:That's cyrillic... (1)

sperling (524821) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733656)

That's a greek font and english text. They've used a mix of greek characters visually corresponding to latin, and greek characters audibly corresponding to latin characters.

It's definitely not greek in any other way than the font, and a pretty stupid obfuscation IMO.

Comment Snipets Leaked? (0)

lostchicken (226656) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733586)

Since the only thing common here (that we can see) is comments, wouldn't object code not be in violation, and hence, legal?

Comments ... (1, Flamebait)

jasonsfa98 (648370) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733589)

There is nothing wrong with having the same comments.

Re:Comments ... (3, Funny)

FrankoBoy (677614) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733653)

It's often what Slashdot is all about, anyway ;)

Re:Comments ... (2, Interesting)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733696)

There is nothing wrong with having the same comments.

Except, of course, that it's plagiarism?

Re:Comments ... (2, Funny)

wonkamaster (599507) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733736)

There is nothing wrong with having the same comments.
There is nothing wrong with having the same comments.

Re:Comments ... (0)

miruku (642921) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733780)

It's often what Slashdot is all about, anyway ;)

hehe, geddit?!

Kernel mailing list comment (5, Informative)

Gaetano (142855) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733590)

This from the kernel mailing list [theaimsgroup.com]

http://www.tuhs.org/Archive/Caldera-license.pdf [tuhs.org]

January 23, 2002 Dear UNIX? enthusiasts, Caldera International, Inc. hereby grants a fee free license that includes the rights use, modify and distribute this named source code, including creating derived binary products created from the source code. The source code for which Caldera International, Inc. grants rights are limited to the following UNIX Operating Systems that operate on the 16-Bit PDP-11 CPU and early versions of the 32-Bit UNIX Operating System, with specific exclusion of UNIX System III and UNIX System V and successor operating systems: 32-bit 32V UNIX 16 bit UNIX Versions 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

-Tupshin

So this is what they're pitching a fit about? (2, Insightful)

KCardoza (593977) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733594)

Heck, I'll wager that code is also in BSD. In fact, I'll bet that's where both SCO/AT&T/Whoever got it from. Linux probably got it from BSD, too. Of course, this is all conjecture, and I'm not a lawyer, though I lived with one for two years.

Symbol font translation (-1, Redundant)

Phroggy (441) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733595)

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

Well... (2, Interesting)

blackmonday (607916) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733597)

I don't know how accurate these pictures are, but they only show identical comments (except for 1 line), not actual code. They're going to have to do better than that. And yes, they converted the text to the symbol font. These guys astound me with their stupidity.

Tone of the article... (2, Informative)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733600)

is a bit condencending towards those who believe SCO doesn't have a case. A sort of, "we told you so" and it reproduces a lot of McBride's rhetoric about the evils of open source.

Heise is not a very open-source friendly news outlet. So take this with a grain of salt.

But, having seen duplicated comments alread makes me worrysome. What is in the sc/*.c files anyway?

(realization) The code... (3, Informative)

Ayanami Rei (621112) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733668)

they list as duplicated is freely available in the SysV-7 releases, which anyone has access to.

It's from an implementation of malloc, and the codes is pretty simple (no reason to deviate).

If this is a shining example, it is a very poor one. It only looks the same because everyone had access to it and no one thought to change it, renaming variables or otherwise.

Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (5, Funny)

*igor* (34968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733601)


if (size == 0)
return) ((ulong_t NULL);

What is this, amateur night?

Re:Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733701)

mapsize(mp)++;
looks strange too

Re:Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733724)

You have to use the sco switch:
gcc -o -scoRuLEz ate_utils.c ate_utils.o

Re:Code in picture 2 doesn't even compile (5, Informative)

PiGuy (531424) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733759)

Here's the actual kernel code:
if (size == 0)
return((ulong_t) NULL);
Now, where'd that misteak come from?

babelfished (5, Informative)

Empiric (675968) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733603)

Here's a semi-readable, slightly-cleaned babelfish translation... it'd be great if somebody who can actually speak German could post a better one...


The fight for the legal standard of Linux develops more and more to the show piece: Still two weeks ago ago on the Linuxworld had itself boss Mathew Szulik as the rescuer of the free world explained and all Linux trailers to the fight against the chains of the commercial software industry called. Now geriert itself its opponent Darl McBride of SCO still more martialischer: a James bond in the struggle with dark power -- the open SOURCE movement.

SCO executive committee Darl McBride used two full hours for the prelude of the SCO forum, in order to represent the legal position of its company. With pictures and title music from James bond films the manager sought itself to join in the faithful ones of the former cult company from Santa Cruz for fight for property. The SCO Group leads a law case with IBM because of alleged copyright infringements and abuse of SCOs protected Unix program code in Linux. Star lawyer David Boies, which attained celebrity as a complaint representative of the US government against Microsoft, represents SCO IBM over 1500 Linux Grossanwender printing reminder approximately from SCO kept and was requested to pay royalties.

Supported of its vice-president Chris Sontag showed McBride of examples from the code of the Linux Kernelversionen 2,5 and 2,6, which are to prove that program sections were transferred invariably from Unix -- an example shown by SCO to code comments in the picture left ( version increased ). Identical typing errors in the comments as well as unusual ways of writing would have left traitorous traces, to stated Sontag. Around this to prove McBride a 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. They would stand however representing for thousands of program lines, for stressed Sontag. From several persons or groups at different times parts were transferred illegaly to Linux and distributed sourceopen at users and developers. At the contentious software it goes besides not around simple or trivial functions, but important operating system characteristics for the fitness with fastidious tasks and in extremely safe operating conditions into enterprises. In addition belong the multi-processor mechanisms NUMA and SMP, which were to be had under Unix Lizenzbedingungen only with expensive hardware in the value of ten thousands from US dollar to.

Approximately 700 crucial code lines of the SMP technology are to have moved from Unix into the Linux releases 2,4 and 2,5. Altogether SCOs testers over 800.000 lines would have found duplicated program text -- an example of SCO shows the picture right ( version increased ). Attorney Mark Heise from the Boies boies-Kanzlei came along for the support of the SCO managers on the podium in read Vegas. It made clear that a GPL license did not protect against the requirement for authority of SCO. The Unix license, which bought SCO 1994 of the original Unix inventor RK & T, guarantees SCO property at Unix system v copyrights and all RKS & t-software and Sublizenzrechten. Originally the license agreement defined by RK & t-lawyers, which changed over by purchase to SCO, is clear in addition regarding the range and consequence of the license, stressed the lawyer. Afterwards the license grants the "right the software products to the licensee (for example IBM) to own business purposes to use internally", quoted Marks of Heise from the contract text. "modifications and derivatives of results are to be treated like the original software products", continue to be called it there. And they "cannot become used for others or by others".

"Now we know ourselves finally, like Linux in completely short time of a hobby operating system to the platform for enterprise IT mausern could", stichelte Sontag. "sounds too good if somewhat, in order to be true, then it is usually also not true, put to McBride still one drauf. Matured technology is not to be had evenly to the zero tariff. "free software -- that is not our thing." Into Unix were 20 years development: With this basis SCO wants to make also in the next 20 years money. It called developers and partners from the Unix surrounding field for support, because "otherwise the times of the good business will soon past be". GPL and the open SOURCE culture destroyed legal implicit basis of contracts -- compensation for developed damage and a legal agenda for the future were essential therefore. Here again lawyer Mark of Heise sekundierte: The fact that SCO distributed once as Linux Distributor equal source code does not mean that Linux users with the GPL license are protected against all requirements. Copyright for the code is to be attained only by a signed contract with the licenser, reads its position.

"we fight for the right to earn with software money. And we fight for you also!" McBride the SCO public called too. Since its beginning as a SCO boss one year ago continuously it had to strike battles, sounded that replacement James bond. He got over threats and compulsions of IBMs legal department so far likewise like demonstrators before SCO headquarters in Lindon/Utah. Of Novell reported it, which company had in a judicial complaint only stated the Unix license at SCO to have never sold. After four days the license department Novells stated then that the purchase took place some years ago nevertheless rightfully and the complaint withdrawn.

The principal purposes of SCO are clear: From IBM the earlier Linux Distributor wants an acknowledgment of its copyrights on Unix as well as appropriate license agreements regarding all products, which contain Unix code. In addition the Utaher compensation for escaped conversion and geschaeftsschaedigung requires by the spreading of the source code in Linux. Linux customers have three alternatives to the choice according to SCO: Either they reset their Linux installations on Linux Kernel release 2,2. For this software SCO would recognize the legal use. Second possibility would be the choice of another operating system. The last alternative would like to SCO: The customers acquire licenses , which SCO offers for the price of scarcely 700 to dollar per processor. So far allegedly only one the Fortune500-Unternehmen of, it written down by SCO, made use.

Outside of the legal confusion however actually also the product development is to continue with SCO. Managed McBride left it to its development boss to present the product Roadmap the software company. The most important novelty lines up with a new version of the SCO open server with the code name ' putting ". Putting in particular Java is to support. For better Windows binding an interface provides to Samba version 3. The version offers new Security characteristics in the form of VPN, IP seconds. In addition hardware interfaces come for USB devices and ACPI. Web services are supported by SCOs of internal SCOx environment. The first beta version of putting appears center next yearly, final release is planned for at the end of of 2004. A Office Mailserver under UnixWare for Messaging -, calendar and other Teamwork functions already left SCO on Monday of the pile. It is to offer Microsofts Exchange server Paroli. For the user administration in mixed environments SCO offers immediately Authentication to 2,1. By binding at Microsofts Active directory can be used together with it user identities (however no single sign-on) from both environments ( Erich Bonnert )/( jk /c't)

second one does look too close if it is there (2, Insightful)

strider3700 (109874) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733610)

Speaking as someone that used to mark compsci programming assignments I would fail both people if they had the code in the second example. It's a little too tricky to have the exact same thing come up unless worked on.

Having said that I doubt this will affect the future of linux. IBM has too much to lose they'll just crush SCO if they have to.

Re:second one does look too close if it is there (2, Funny)

iainl (136759) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733705)

I don't doubt you would fail both students if they wrote that code. Not for collaborating, but for both nicking it from 1992-era BSD...

Comparison through obfuscation? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733614)

If the code between the two is exact, then why obfuscate the SCO portion?

Code copying, or compatibility? (2, Interesting)

192939495969798999 (58312) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733615)

That's not that many lines of code. I think you have to ask yourself if they could've just stumbled onto the same routine. Arguably, having the comments the same is a much more precarious scenario. However, I would argue that perhaps at the time SCO didn't really care, because I can't imagine a case where a programmer would be involved on a highly proprietary project, and would let source leak out without seeking some monetary compensation. If that is what happened, then clearly there is some fraud here. Otherwise, "oops, shouldn't have let people see the source."

I dunno... (3, Funny)

slashhax0r (579213) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733623)

It's all Greek To me!!!

64 bit code? (1)

machinecraig (657304) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733640)

I know that this is probably just the first of many leaks, etc - but stolen source code related to 64bit code wouldn't really affect many people's home linux distros.

Stolen Comments!!! (5, Funny)

burgburgburg (574866) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733649)

The fact that SCO refused to show code fragments that they claim are stolen, but felt free to display this purloined comment indicates the root of the problem:

The System V comments have been stolen!!!

Obviously no actual code has been used. But the comments, the key component of the intellectual property that makes up SCO, has been lifted near verbatim and ruthlessly incorporated into Linux. Oh, the injustice.

When will it end?!?

Re:Stolen Comments!!! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733710)

You know, comments don't end up in the compiled binary. So SCO's claims to "binary licensing" are entirely specious.

Bogus (1)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733650)

Both slides seem to be implementations of standard pseudo-code in textbook implementations. If SCO is claiming this is "proprietary" then we're gonna have to change the variables names? Ridiculous. I don't see anything in here that even closely resembles Intellectual Property. At a certain granularity, *X follows the same paradigm for some implementations anyway. I mean, any function implementing a heap manager is now suspect?

Translation of Kernel Code (3, Funny)

Matrix272 (581458) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733654)

It actually says:

# Comment by Linus:
# This is not code written by SCO. I swear to god, I wrote it myself.
# It just looks a lot like SCO's code. It just happened that way. There's
# only so many ways to do certain things... I mean, hey, I have to make
# a living too! Where are my lawyers? Well? I don't have any! I have to
# scrap by on a measly salary trying my best to make a difference in the
# world, all the while, companies like IBM and Microsoft release shitty
# software all the time, and nobody seems to care! They're all getting
# butt-raped, and they don't even know it! Well, not anymore! I'm going to
# make the best operating system in the world, and name it after myself!
# M$ and IBM sux0rs!

Very interesting news article (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733655)

http://news.com.com/2100-1016_3-5065422.html [com.com]

Neil Abraham, with SCO reseller Kerridge Computer, said SCO made the right decision to pursue IBM. "I think they've got a very firm case," he said, after looking at the code. "It's not just one line. It's huge chunks."

Translation (2, Funny)

Vaulter (15500) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733661)

/*
* The following code is verbatim from Linux 2.4, and
* should guarantee binary compatibility for applications.
*/

To sum up: (5, Interesting)

Vexalith (684137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733664)

To sum up, this code is in 2.4.x but not 2.5.x, was also present in BSD which means its open source based on the case the BSD creators went through in the early 1990s. Have SCO really so poorly researched these examples that this is the best they can show us?

Re:To sum up: (5, Informative)

Vexalith (684137) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733702)

It's also in a 1986 Berkley file: http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11 BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c

Re:To sum up: (1, Insightful)

terraformer (617565) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733770)

was also present in BSD which means its open source based on the case the BSD creators went through in the early 1990s

Mind backing that up w/ a little evidence? It could very well be the key to putting this whole fsck'n mess behind us...

Re:To sum up: (1)

Lussarn (105276) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733771)


Have SCO really so poorly researched these examples that this is the best they can show us?

Hey, it's sourcecode. It must belong to SCO...

Lunis (0, Offtopic)

hipbase (610975) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733666)

Is Lunis guilty of CO infringements?

but linux 2.6 OK (2, Interesting)

joostje (126457) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733667)

But I cannot find code resembling the mentioned offending code in linux-2.6.0-test3.

OK, I'm not a rocket scientist, so maybe I'm not very good at grepping. Any rocket scientists around here?

SCO sues my uncle's tire shop! (2, Funny)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733671)

For immediate release:

SCO (NASDAQ: SCUM) today filed a lawsuit against Joe's Tire Shop for violating SCO's trademarks. SCO alleges that Linux, a proprietary CRM middleware product developed by IBM, contains technologies owned by SCO.

"Joe's Tire Shop uses Microsoft Windows," commented SCO CEO Darl McBride. "We have already established that Microsoft has violated our trademarks by using Linux. The liability for these actions, therefore, falls on Joe's Tire Shop. It is the responsibility of Joe's Tire Shop and all businesses worldwide to side with SCO and allocate all of their resources to the exclusive end of helping us. Either you're with us or you're against us."

If SCO wins the lawsuit, Joe, the owner of Joe's Tire Shop, will pay 10 billion in damages. SCO alleges over four billion lines of source code--essentially the middleware business rules developed by SCO--have been illegally copied in the Linux Colonel, the main component of IBM's CRM product.

"By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions," said a spokesperson for SCO. SCO stocks climbed 11% after the initial announcement.

Ah hah! (3, Funny)

airrage (514164) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733673)

It was Professor Plum in the library with the candlestick!!!!

Re:Ah hah! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733722)

dont you mean the xerox machine? he is in the library, after all.....

SCO sues YOU. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733676)

SCO found equal code in all sorts of Open Source software and starts an invasion of lawsuits against poor programmers. Here is a 1:1 copied codesnipplet that SCO claims ownage for.


int main (*argc, **argv)
{
printf ("Hello Workd!");

return 0;
}

Hmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733677)

This code appears to have been contributed by Silicon Graphics.

Re:Hmmm (1)

AndyFewt (694753) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733765)

Just read that copyright on the top of the kernel.org link (along with the GPL)

Is this slander or is it libel? (2, Insightful)

oni (41625) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733687)

Just to summarize some of the other comments, this code was published in a programming book way back in 1974. The fact that SCO claims it was copied from them has got to be either slander or libel - please tell me this is enough to get a STFU injunction immediately!

Yes, that's right, they're claiming malloc() (5, Informative)

raindog2 (91790) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733693)

Here's the earliest implementation people have found so far, from 1979 (before SCO was "born"):

http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V7/usr/sys/sys/mal loc.c.html [tuhs.org]

And here's where it was part of BSD 2.11 circa 1992:

http://unix-archive.pdp11.org.ru/PDP-11/Trees/2.11 BSD/sys/sys/subr_rmap.c [pdp11.org.ru]

Oh, how I hope the mainstream tech press "gets" this.

Code from BSD? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733697)

I think that it looks like SCO's snippet, doesn't even belong to them, compare following which is: Copyright 1986 Regents of the University of California [pdp11.org.ru]

That's BSD

More stolen code from SCO (1, Redundant)

genkael (102983) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733703)

Here's some more example code SCO claims to be copied:

{

later in the file...

}

SCO shows (1)

Lolaine (262966) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733704)

that comments are of them. Great then! my *compiled* kernel has not any SCO comments!

Here's that comment in a 1984 Usenet posting! (5, Interesting)

yeremein (678037) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733706)

Here [google.com] or Here [tinyurl.com]

The Code Isn't The Same? (1)

suwain_2 (260792) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733707)

If you look at the first shot, it seems they've used red for the 'common' lines of code, black for ones that are different. Note that the actual code is black.

Even if it's just comments that were stolen, it is wrong. But for those of us who just run binary apps and don't build from source... I don't have those comments. :)

Who added the code to the kernel? (2, Interesting)

comnenos (689785) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733719)

Has anyone checked the linux CVS repository to see who added the code? If so, could you post your findings?

Line by line copying - One example of many (1)

borgdows (599861) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733725)

ah people time to wave bye bye to SCO Group (4, Insightful)

linuxislandsucks (461335) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733726)

this is code that was contributed by Caldera employees and thus released under full SCO Group knowledge to Linux..

So where is the magical proof that McBride keeps claiming that he has?

I smell a fraud lawsuit against McBride on the basis of both Federal and State BlueSky Laws on the basis on making false factual public statements that investors relied upon to buy SCO Group stock..

and Boise should know better than to perpuate false information about the laws and regs on software copyrights!

IA64? Did Intel provide this? (1)

gimlet77 (699532) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733728)

Um...isn't it entirely possible that this was sample code provided by Intel so that developers would have Itanium code ready?

still proves nothing... (5, Insightful)

The Lynxpro (657990) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733742)

My reaction is "so what." I wouldn't be surprised if you saw those same lines in NT. They probably originated in BSD as so many others have stated and will continue to state. If it is true Caldera sent an employee or two to IBM to help *beef up* Linux, then that would be a valid explanation as to why the code is the same. SCO is Caldera and they cannot deny that no matter how many times they change their corporate name. They put the lines in there and they distributed the offending versions of Linux under the GPL. Just because they are no where as successful as RedHat or SuSE gives them no rights to try to weasel out of it now... When will SuSE, Xandros, and Lindows join the RedHat lawsuit against *Caldera*???

Code in question is BSD-licensed (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733743)

A quick search will show that the code presented as SCO code appears in the BSD kernel as mfree(). In fact, the Linux copy is much closer to the BSD code than the SCO code (especially in the comments), which would seem to imply the submitter to Linux copied the code from old BSD source and SCO copied and then obfuscated the same code.

At least in this example, it's pretty clear that the code presented is non-infringing.

Looks like SGIs IP not SCOs (3, Informative)

pstreck (558593) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733745)

/* $Id: ate_utils.c,v 1.1 2002/02/28 17:31:25 marcelo Exp $ * * This file is subject to the terms and conditions of the GNU General Public * License. See the file "COPYING" in the main directory of this archive * for more details. * * Copyright (C) 1992 - 1997, 2000-2002 Silicon Graphics, Inc. All rights reserved. */ Copyright SGI.... hrrmm, I wonder what their contract says about derrivitive(i cant spell) works.

Is this the infamous "80 lines"? (2, Interesting)

raindog2 (91790) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733753)

It would be interesting to find out if this were the 80 lines of code all those analysts saw under NDA. It would say a lot not only about SCO's case but about the research abilities of technical analysts these days....

arch/ia64? SCO doesn't run on 64 arch? (2, Insightful)

joostje (126457) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733754)

/arch/ia64/sn/io/ate_utils.c?
And I thought SCO doesn't run on any 64 but arch? Can anyone explain how we copied code for 64 bit arch processors from SCO sources, of all places?

OK, they are saying they own the copyright of it because it's in SYSV code which they didn't write, but by some contract own anyway. Is that it?

Insanity (4, Interesting)

Helmholtz (2715) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733760)

Of course isn't descrabling the greek phrase a direct violation of the DMCA?

CRAP! Now SCO can sue all the people that have printed, spoken, or otherwise communicated the obscured text!

This whole thing is really getting ridiculous. I wonder how long it will be before the laws that support this kind of nonsense are seriously reworked and/or simply gotten rid of.

IANAL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#6733782)

IANAL, but I watch Law and Order.

The code heard around the world (0)

Ozor (592387) | more than 11 years ago | (#6733786)

I better stop using my Linux kernel know that I know the truth. We should all write a declaration of Independence from SCO now that they are taxes us without representation.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?