Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

SCO Complaint Filed -- Including Code Samples

timothy posted more than 10 years ago | from the all-over-the-board dept.

Caldera 663

btempleton writes "The folks at Groklaw have posted a story including a preliminary copy of Caldera/SCO's amended complaint, including lines of code they allege were improperly included in Linux. The PDF can be found at this story The file lists unix filenames with line numbers and filenames and line numbers from the Linux 2.2 and 2.4 kernels, so folks can now go into real depth."

cancel ×

663 comments

GNAA claims reponsibility for DOS of JewPranks.com (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214890)

GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which
gathers GAY NIGGERS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GAY NIGGERS.

Are you GAY [klerck.org] ?
Are you a NIGGER [tux.org] ?
Are you a GAY NIGGER [gay-sex-access.com] ?

If you answered "Yes" to any of the above questions, then GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GAY NIGGER community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America. You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

First, you have to obtain a copy of GAY NIGGERS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE [imdb.com] (Click Here [idge.net] to download the ~280MB MPEG off of BitTorrent)

Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA "first post" on slashdot.org [slashdot.org] , a popular "news for trolls" website

Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on EFNet, and apply for membership.
Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today!

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GAY NIGGER ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is EFNet, and you can connect to irc.secsup.org or irc.easynews.com as one of the EFNet servers.
If you do not have an IRC client handy, you are free to use the GNAA Java IRC client by clicking here [nero-online.org] .

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

This post brought to you by Penisbird [nero-online.org] , a proud member of the GNAA

CLICK HERE TO SIGN THE PETITION TO BRING BACK GOATSE.CX! [petitiononline.com]

________________________________________________
| ______________________________________._a,____ |
| _______a_._______a_______aj#0s_____aWY!400.___ |
| __ad#7!!*P____a.d#0a____#!-_#0i___.#!__W#0#___ |
| _j#'_.00#,___4#dP_"#,__j#,__0#Wi___*00P!_"#L,_ |
| _"#ga#9!01___"#01__40,_"4Lj#!_4#g_________"01_ |
| ________"#,___*@`__-N#____`___-!^_____________ |
| _________#1__________?________________________ |
| _________j1___________________________________ |
| ____a,___jk_ GAY_NIGGER_ASSOCIATION_OF_AMERICA_|
| ____!4yaa#l___________________________________ |
| ______-"!^____________________________________ |
` _______________________________________________'

OMG YOSHI NOT SO FAST!!!! OH MY! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214951)

Check out the amazing Yoshi girl [netfirms.com] and her playful tentacle friend! Rides starting soon at $29.99 (Saddle not included; children ride for half-price).

Yoshi-girl is genetically engineered to be in constant sexual heat and is guaranteed to pounce on even the smelliest nerd with little coaxing! Spending a few hours with Yoshi-girl is sure to be the most gratifying experience you've had in years. Don't believe us? Just look at these testimonials from previous customers:

Hunched over in that uncomfortable chair writing Linux kernel code all day was really tense. Human girls wouldn't come near me, but Yoshi-girl treated me like I was the last man on Earth. Two thumbs up!
-- Linus Torvalds

Sure she's not human, but it sure beats all the sleazy Mexican whores I've been with, and believe me, I've been with more than you can count. You go Yoshi!
-- Miguel De Icaza

You gotta love the 2-foot-long tongue.
-- Richard Stallman

Official webpage with registration info and pricing coming soon, be patient /.'ers. In the meantime try these other quality sites for all your horny geek fanboy needs:

Lara Croft Land [goat.cx]
Natalie Portman covered with hot grits [tubgirl.com]
RMS gone wild! [stallman.org]
CowboyNeal: behind the blubber [cowboyneal.org]
Taco's new .com venture [orbitz.com]



# Important Smurfs: Please try to keep posts on Smurfette.
# Try to spooge on other people's comments instead of starting new threads (of semen.)
# Read George Bush's subliminablble messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. (Like George W and his Dad)
# Use a clear lubricant that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be NAZI-Fied. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the Loser Rights Page)
# If you want replies to your trolls sent to you, consider logging in or creating a trolling account.

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to Hitler [tiscali.dk]

# Important Smurfs: Please try to keep posts on Smurfette.
# Try to spooge on other people's comments instead of starting new threads (of semen.)
# Read George Bush's subliminablble messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. (Like George W and his Dad)
# Use a clear lubricant that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be NAZI-Fied. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the Loser Rights Page)
# If you want replies to your trolls sent to you, consider logging in or creating a trolling account.

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to Hitler [tiscali.dk]

# Important Smurfs: Please try to keep posts on Smurfette.
# Try to spooge on other people's comments instead of starting new threads (of semen.)
# Read George Bush's subliminablble messages before posting your own to avoid simply duplicating what has already been said. (Like George W and his Dad)
# Use a clear lubricant that describes what your message is about.
# Offtopic, Inflammatory, Inappropriate, Illegal, or Offensive comments might be NAZI-Fied. (You can read everything, even moderated posts, by adjusting your threshold on the Loser Rights Page)
# If you want replies to your trolls sent to you, consider logging in or creating a trolling account.

Problems regarding accounts or comment posting should be sent to Hitler [tiscali.dk]

fp (-1, Offtopic)

MattElmore (599195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214895)

fp

Not only... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214903)

Not only are you a tool for making a first post post, but you were beat out by the GNAA! That's right! Your post wasn't even first!

First $699 post (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214896)

First post in an SCO item concerning the $699 Linux-usage fee.

Re:First $699 post (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215116)

Don't forget to pay your cock-smoking tea-baggers. They need money too.

Ah, at last! (2, Funny)

James A. E. Joyce (746360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214899)

This announcement is like a cool refreshing glass of lemonade. We'll finally be able to explain in agonising detail exactly why SCO is just blowing smoke out of their arse.

Quick summary: nothing special (5, Informative)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215078)

Mostly standards-related header files, about 200 lines from .c files (some of which never hit the mainstream kernel, some of which are already obselete, some of which were distributed by Caldera themselves). No copyright claims any more. No trade-secret claims any more. It's down to breach of contract against IBM.

Most telling is that none of the code listed is from TSG, OpenServer or UnixWare, it's all IBM-authored code and the entire gambit rests on the breach-of-contract details.

Cue "Funeral March for a Marionette [palle.net] "...

Back of the bus (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214900)

Old ladies just wanna get around town
They don't want to sit next to something brown
You're vile, disgusting, revolting and black
So keep walking, nigger, and get in the back

Back of the bus, back of the bus - we don't want you to sit near us

That stupid fucking chimp Rosa Parks was a cunt
That brain-damaged monkey tried to sit in the front
She forgot that she was from an inferior class
If she was here now I'd kick her primate ass

Back of the bus, back of the bus - we don't want you to sit near us

You stupid fucking ugly nigger piece of shit
You'd better find yourself another place to sit
When you get on the bus you'd better walk by
'Cause if you sit in the front you're gonna die

Back of the bus, back of the bus - we don't want you to sit near us

Re:Back of the bus (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215043)

Even literacy is not for everyone.

Hello, fraud squad? (2, Redundant)

leonbrooks (8043) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214901)

Either way.. goodbye, case!

Re:Hello, fraud squad? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215121)

i've never seen someone modded '4' without a rating...

Alleged copied files (-1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214905)

bullshit.h

lines 45 - 900

crap.h

lines 1 - 47

lies_and_damn_lies.h

lines 1 - 19456

MOD PARENT DOWN! NOT AT ALL FUNNY!! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215013)

Just because it's anti-SCO doesn't mean it's in any way funny.

Re:MOD PARENT DOWN! NOT AT ALL FUNNY!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215095)

Amen. I'm sick of this stupid shit. Did anyone actually laugh out loud? Anyone?

Babel round 2 (4, Funny)

3seas (184403) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214907)

Does this mean we can now replace those lines and let the air out of the SCO tires?

What is SCO's next move? (2, Funny)

Vreejack (68778) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215019)

Of course the code will be quickly replaced whether it can be proved it belongs to SCO or not. We always knew this and surely SCO did as well. So what is SCO up to, exactly? Is this what the copyright suit is meant to address? Are they trying to make sure they still have some way to sue Big Blue?

"It's spelled SCOX and pronounced to rhyme with _cocks_."

Re:What is SCO's next move? (2, Funny)

Neop2Lemus (683727) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215093)

I always thought that it meant that they could claim ownership of those particular releases, whatever the future releases would be. That would give them a free, top notch OS which they could market and build from.

Couse I know nothing on this topic, so am I correct in this?

Re:Babel round 2 (5, Funny)

eclectro (227083) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215020)

Does this mean we can now replace those lines and let the air out of the SCO tires?

No, we slash the freakin' tires.

Re:Babel round 2 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215054)

Just make sure it is reverse engineered, maybe have a law guy (with computer experence) take a look at the source code. We do not want this type of thing EVER again.

Thank you that's all I have to say.

Post Mirrors Here, Please... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214908)

Thanks.

And so the real game begins (-1, Redundant)

kammat (114899) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214911)

It looks like they've decided to put up. I don't have any source handy, can anyone post snippests of what sections we're looking at?

Why useless PDf files? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214912)

Why put this in useless PDF files, instead of standard HTML or text files?

The only thing to do with a PDF file is to convert it to something usable.

The readers are horrible. Most web pages come up readable, but most PDF files come up with something like a 0.3 font size, and you have to find the "enlarge" icons and bang on them in order to increase the size to readability.

I'm reminded of those PDF ads with the gift-wrapped packages. Getting a PDF is like getting a gift-wrapped turd.

Re:Why useless PDf files? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215027)

i guess that means it is better to give a *.pdf than to recive a *.pdf

Re:Why useless PDf files? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215033)

Obviously you haven't even looked at this PDF document. The text is very large and easy to read. Just like HTML pages, not all PDFs are the same as far as text size.

Netcraft confirms it! (5, Funny)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214916)

Temperature in Hell== 31 F and falling. . .

In other news (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214922)

In a press release issued Friday, a SCO spokesperson asserts there is no order or value in human life or in the universe.

Re:In other news (1)

wa5ter (628478) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214994)

Depressingly enough, that's true.

My aren't I in a cheery mood tonight?

is it only me... (5, Funny)

eryk (6051) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214925)

or anybody else has read "SCO complaint failed"?

Re:is it only me... (1)

Limburgher (523006) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214940)

Nope. Me too. Except I though it was compliant.

Re:is it only me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214978)

Just reading "SCO Complaint Filed" was surprising enough.

Re:is it only me... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215107)

Want to beat Bush in November?

Replacing Bush with a man who thinks I should have to present a national ID card to log into my computer [com.com] is not progress.

Re:is it only me... (5, Funny)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215026)

That's Monday's headline. You must be a slashdot subscriber.

I cant wait for the rebuttals... (0)

detritus` (32392) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214927)

Wonder what Linus will have to say about all of this, or did he do the NDA thing to see his own code?

I'm still working on my rebuttal... (4, Funny)

kramer2718 (598033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215109)

It'll be called "Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at SCO."

It'll be out soon in hardback.

So look forward to the next patch (2, Interesting)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214928)

The "Definitely untouchable 100% SCO free edition"...

Re:So look forward to the next patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214949)

Unless someone can post an entire version of UNIX in source code for us to build a distro out of to make sure it works, how do we really know that the aleged lines of code in Linux were not just made up?

Re:So look forward to the next patch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214958)

Hopefully it's available now and being distributed by ALL the Linux distros...including SCO's FTP site. :)

Re:So look forward to the next patch (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214979)

Ameding the kernel could actually be bad for the community. It would acknowledge the validity of the SCO's claims. We shouldn't change anything until the offending code is proven, beyond a shadow of a doubt, to be a copyright violation.

Otherwise we'd just look guilty.

No "real depth" here... (5, Informative)

Anonymovs Coward (724746) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214931)

Looks like they're pointing out the JFS, EVMA and RCU stuff which everyone knows IBM contributed and probably did modify from IBM's/Dynix's own code. The dispute is about whether SCO has any rights to that code in the first place.

Will Groklaw play a direct role? (5, Insightful)

Chordonblue (585047) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215104)

I suspect that IBM has been paying close attention to the 'subversive' activities at Groklaw, but I wonder if they'll ever get any direct credit for it. There's been a great deal of

PJ and her legal elves certainly deserve our thanks.

2.2 Kernel? (5, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214933)

I thought 2.2 was safe. Then again, we thought they were not going after copyright infringement. I'm guessing that is a typo.

Since SCO has still not actually complied with previous discovery motions, submitted millions of lines of code to IBM in paper form (real class act, they are) and keeps changing their case, my guess is we will see the end of this case, perhaps this year.

UNLESS, of course, the Novell vs. SCO suit sidetracks the IBM suit until we can figure out who actually owns Unix...

Re:2.2 Kernel? (1)

Pecisk (688001) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215014)

For your information, as groklaw.net [groklaw.net] points out, SCO dropped contract claim and added copyright claim to case - as PJ mentions, IF judge will allow them to do that. Yes, SCO still thinks that they own IBM code for all that stuff, it's rather strange. I guess that code nowhere contains their copyright. Oh, and there is still problem with Novell who says that copyrights are NOT transfered to SCO. So in large case, IMHO it's already over now. At least for SCO.

Re:2.2 Kernel? (5, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215076)

For your information, as groklaw.net points out, SCO dropped contract claim and added copyright claim to case

I have read quite a bit of the filing, and it appears contract claims are not fully disappearing.

Quoting Groklaw:

5. This case is not about the debate about the relative merits of proprietary versus open source software. Nor is this case about IBM's right to develop and promote open source software if it decides to do so in furtherance of its independent business objectives, so long as it does so without SCO's proprietary information. This case is, and is only, about the right os SCO not to have its proprietary software misappropriated and misused in violation of its written agreements and well-settled law.

And its not over until its over. I don't know if you live in America, but as someone who worked in a law office doing paralegal and investigation, I can promise you this COULD still last a while, as far as the courts are concerned.

The judge *CAN* decide to wait until it is decided who owns the code (to potentially dismiss with prejudice). The judge can also decide to address that issue in his own court first. This is yet another contract dispute.

I agree that it doesn't look good for SCO, but it never did. They were not trying to win, they were trying to pump and dump, to inflate the stock price, and fight their way toward the door so they can take the money and run. But with the quirkiness of the courts, it still ain't over. I was being optimistic when I said this year...

Mirror... (4, Informative)

Ddalex (647089) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214934)

Fast mirror here [mirroredby.go.ro] ... not that Groklaw would need :D or not ?

I predict (4, Interesting)

GoofyBoy (44399) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214937)

Patches for every single Linux distribution by the end of the week.

And it will include commented lines "*uck you, SCO"

Re:I predict (5, Insightful)

TexVex (669445) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214961)

That would actually be a bad thing for open source, because it would set bad precedent. It would be much better to wait for the case to be resolved. If and only if it turns out SCO code really is in the kernel should the offending code be replaced. I'd be much more interested in seeing the CVS history of the lines in question -- who put them in and when -- than I'd be in seeing a new "SCO-free" kernel.

Re:I predict (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215017)

Remember that damage claims can start from when we first learn that we are infringing. Luckily that gives people time to research and verify the claim. If it's valid, it should be fixed.

Not fixing a true violation would really set far worse precedent.

Re:I predict (4, Insightful)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215030)

That would actually be a bad thing for open source,

I agree. I admit there is a possibility that there is some bad code in Linux (ala SGI, for instance) but at least now we can look through what they are *claiming* is theirs, research the origins for that code, then make a decision. If there is any questionable code, then do the right thing: replace it. My guess is *if* there is infringing code, it would be very minor sections since any large section would have been spotted by now.

Ironic that SCO has been doing everything they can to prevent programmers from doing the right thing.

No there wont (4, Insightful)

boobsea (728173) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214971)

That would be an admission of guilt.

Maybe (3, Insightful)

mcc (14761) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215015)

What I do think that should DEFINITELY be done immediately is just for the heck of it, some minimal-- maybe not even well-done, maybe just copying code from 2.0 or whatever these files were like before the submission-- patches that remove all of the allegedly infringing code should EXIST, if not be incorporated into the main linux tree, just as a proof of concept.

So that later if SCO is trying to claim "we've been damaged by this", people can respond with "bullshit, those files were nonessential to Linux, look how quickly the community was able to provide replacements and it wasn't even something they had to or had reason to do".

Re:Maybe (3, Funny)

hendridm (302246) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215084)

> maybe just copying code from 2.0 or whatever these files were like before the submission

Like RCU, NUMA, and JFS support?

Any kernel coders here? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214939)

Now that the cats tail is out of the bag, you can clean the kernel. Removing the offending lines will help to foil the case.

Lets see 2.4.25 and 2.6.3 with these lines eliminated.

SCO Code Sample (4, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214943)

Here's a sample of the actual code:

Select All (*Linux.Users*)

Repeat
Daryls.Bankacct = Daryls.Bankacct + Linux.User.Acct(x)
until total(Linux.Users) = 0

set displaymode = gloat

Re:SCO Code Sample (1)

dotwaffle (610149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215044)

Who's Daryl? Don't you mean Darl? Darl McBride.?

Oops (5, Funny)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215065)

I keep thinking of him as Daryl, since Darl is a female name.

To make matters worse, he's a McBride and not a McGroom.

Re:SCO Code Sample (3, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215047)

Oh god -- is Linux written in Visual Basic :-O

Re:SCO Code Sample (2, Funny)

Liselle (684663) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215061)

Looks like Darl's code doesn't actually take any money out, it just drops an equivalent value in his account. The U.S. Mint is gonna be pissed. ;)

At the very least (4, Interesting)

alan_dershowitz (586542) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214946)

SCO still doesn't have the right to subsume all copyrights to the work that everyone has done on Linux to date, If this is correct, I don't know what the ramifications would be, but linux would survive. Isn't this how BSD ended up? All proprietary code was systematically replaced over time, and the result is still free.

I'm not sending anyone a check for $699.

Re:At the very least (4, Interesting)

TrentC (11023) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215056)

I'm not sending anyone a check for $699.

Don't worry, you couldn't even if you wanted to [lwn.net] .

Jay (=

Re:At the very least (1)

negacao (522115) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215072)

IIRC, BSD debacle ended up with AT&T/co losing in court, because no proprietary code was found..



but that's only IIRC. :)

SCO sues MYDOOM virus creator (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214948)

for using parts of the sco's code.

Mirror of PDF (4, Informative)

Motherfucking Shit (636021) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214950)

I've mirrored the PDF file here [phplabs.com] . At 2.5MB a pop, this mirror is subject to disappear at any time, but perhaps it'll alleviate the load on Groklaw for the time being. Please post other mirrors here.

Thanks PJ for all you do :)

Re:Mirror of PDF (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214982)

here's another mirror [sonic.net] :)

posted anonymously cause i don't need to whore.

- Hes Nikke /me hopes his ISP closes access before billing for excess bandwidth...

Blank lines have been copyrighted by SCO (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214955)

The code lines correspond to blank lines. SCO has obviously copyrighted blank lines.

Whooga! Whooga! (3, Funny)

zandermander (563602) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214959)


Now people who are really qualified can do a "Deep Dive". Not just some imaginary mathmaticians from MIT.

DIVE! DIVE!

Now WE can sink their Battleship! :-)

code references in case groklaw get /.ed (4, Informative)

xlyz (695304) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214964)

100. The contribution of the Journaling File System ("JFS") was done in a series of "drops" of AIX code identified as "reference files" inside Linux. The first such drop occurred on or about February 2000, with multiple additions and significant follow-up work by IBM since that time to adapt AIX/JFS for enterprise use inside Linux. These drops of reference files do not necessarily become part of the source code in the Linux kernel, but rather are public displays of the Protected Materials so that anyone has access to them and can use them to construct similar file in Linux. The first drop contains (a) a partially functioning port, or transfer, of JFS from AIX to Linux; (b) a set of reference directories (named ref/) which contain the AIX reference version of AIX/JFS; (c) AIX/JFS-related utility files used to maintain and upkeep AIX/JFS; and (d) a set of directories (named directory ref_utils/) which contain the AIX reference version of utilities. Copies of AIX/JFS files into Linux are shown in Table A, below. Table A compares a 1999 version of AIX and shows the following similarities, demonstrating copying of code, structures and/or sequences.

Table A

AIX 9922A_43NIA File Line #s Linux 2.2.12 ref/File Line #s
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 16-37 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 84-95,
126-138
kernel/sys/vnode.h 109-133 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 96-122
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 39-40 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 189-90
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 161-166 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 414-421
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 172-180 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 37-48
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 199-205 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 52-59
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 62-66 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 286-290
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 72-76 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 295-302
usr/include/jsf/inode.h 83-158 include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h 322-411

These transfers of AIX/JFS to Linux are in violation of the IBM Related Agreements, and are an improper use of AIX for adaptation to a general operating system.

101. IBM has also improperly transferred a UNIX/AIX-based enterprise volume management system ("AIX/EVMS") to Linux. Again, this was done by IBM to transfer enterprise-class capabilities from AIX to Linux, and was a violation of the IBM Related Agreements and IBM's promise not to adapt AIX as a general operating system for a non-IBM company. The purpose of AIX/EVMS is to allow the management of disk storage in terms of logical 'volumes' in a large enterprise environment. Tools with this level of sophistication and performance were entirely unavailable and unknown to the open source development community prior to IBM's improper transfer to Linux. The actual transfer "patch" by IBM can be found at http://www.sourceforge.net/project/showfiles.php?g roup_id=25076&package_id=17436. The first code drop of AIX/EVMS by IBM was v0.0.1, which occurred on 03/21/2001. The first major release of AIX/EVMS by Linux was v1.0.0, in Linux 2.4, which occurred on 03/27/2003. The latest Linux release version of AIX/EVMS is v2.2.1, which occurred on 12/20/2003. The following table, Table B, identifies the AIX/EVMA "patches" of source code improperly transferred by IBM to the Linux 2.4 version.

Table B

AIX MERCED/9922A_43NIA Line #s EVMS 1.0.0 patches to Linux 2.4.x Line #s
kernel/sys/IA64/bootrecord.h 64-170 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 157-263
usr/include/liblvm.h 234-250 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 311-327
usr/include/liblvm.h 252-272
289-307 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 329-349
usr/include/liblvm.h 316-363 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 352-400
usr/include/lvmrec.h 24-92 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 266-294
usr/include/lvm.h 26-35 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 6-11
kernel/sys/hd_psn.h 32 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 26
kernel/sys/vgsa.h 37,
56-73 include/linux/evms/evms_aix.h 13,
300-309

102. As with the other violations described herein, these transfers by IBM constitute improper use of AIX for and by others, improper transfers of AIX to others, and improper adaptation of AIX as a general operating system for a non-IBM company under the restrictions of the IBM Related Agreements. In disregard of the IBM Related Agreements, IBM has transferred this key enterprise technology from AIX to Linux.

104. Sequent also had certain contractual obligations and restrictions on its use of the UNIX System V code that it licensed from AT&T, SCO's predecessor. These restrictions, which are more fully stated in the Sequent Agreements, also restricted Sequent's use of the modifications they made to UNIX System V and derivative works of UNIX System V, including Sequent's Dynix/ptx. Like IBM, Sequent agreed to restrictions on Dynix/ptx, including that Dynix/ptx for or by others, and that it would not transfer any part of Dynix/ptx to parties who do not have a UNIX System V source code agreement with SCO. Sequent also agreed that they would maintain all of Dynix/ptx in confidence. In violation of these contractual restrictions, IBM provided entire files of Dynix/ptx source code as a patch to Linux 2.4.1-01, including Read Copy Update ("RCU").

105. RCU is a mechanism that can significantly improve the performance and scalability of multi-processor systems by allowing simultaneous access to data without the need for expensive and time consuming locking protocols. Dynix/ptx/RCU structures and sequences were originally offerred as a patch to the Linux 2.4 kernel by IBM, with rather limited functionality inside Linux 2.4. However, in the development of Linux version 2.6, the deployment of Dynix/ptx/RCU structures and sequences has spread into new uses inside Linux, including networking, device drivers, list management, and directory access. This demonstrates how improper contribution of a few hundred lines from Dynix/ptx has had a massive impact on Linux kernel efficiency, particularly relating to multi-processor functionality and processor memory synchronization. Virtually the entirre files identified in Table C that originated in Dynix/ptx were published as a patch to Linux 2.4.1-01, with only minimal changes.

Table C
DynixV v4.6.1 Files Linux 2.4.1-01 files
kernel/sys/rclock.h include/linux/rclock.
kernel/os/rclock.c kernel/rclock.c
kernel/sys/kma_defer.h include/linux/kmemdef.h
kernel/os/kma_defer.c kernel/kmemdef.c

106. As stated, the entire files specified above show direct line-by-line copying of the files with the same name in Dynix as in Linux, with slight changes made to reflect some variations between the two operating systems. That the code in Linux comes from Dynix/ptx is further confirmed by the commentary in the Linux patch that expressly states that it is "[b]ased on a Dynix/ptx implementation by Paul McKenney..." Mr. McKenney was formerly an engineer at Sequent, and is now employed at IBM following IBM's acquisition of Sequent. After the first initial improper contribution of RCU by IBM, RCU became more widespread in the Linux kernel.

107. Code from Dynix/ptx files, but less than the entire file, was also copied line-for-line from DynixV v4.6.1 to Linux 2.4.1-01, with the file name and file line number in each code base identified appropriately.

Table D
DynixV v4.6.1 Files Line #s Linux 2.4.1-01 files Line #s
kernel/os/kern_clock.c 2028-2059 arch/i386/kernel/apic.c 25-28, 662-664
676-684
kernel/os/kern_clock.c 2028-2059 kernel/timer.c 26-29, 681-683
688-697
kernel/i386/locore.s 1487-1497 arch/i386/kernel/entry.S 199-205
kernel/i386/trap.c 1554-1563 arch/i386/kernel/traps.c 52-54, 244-247,
331-334, 542-545,
659-662, 718-721
kernel/i386/trap.c 2054 init/main.c 30-33, 609-616

Ah-ha! (5, Funny)

ch0ke (129779) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214967)

Line 327 of named file 13 is merely a closing brace.

j/k

Millions of lines? (4, Informative)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214974)

Looking at their list, there can't be more than a thousand lines there. Most of the matches are about 5-10 lines each.

And they're ALL written by IBM. And IBM's perpetual license says they own their contributions.

Summary (5, Funny)

nepheles (642829) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214976)

To save you reading the lengthy PDF, here are some of the major similarities noted:

'int main ()' appears repeatedly in both UNIX System V and Linux
'#include ' is also obvious stealing of code, appearing in many Linux source files
Furthermore, 'for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_LENGTH; i++)' style loops are obviously copied by IBM developers intimately familiar with the original implementations.

SCO's case is strong.

Re:Summary (5, Funny)

jpetts (208163) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215016)

Yawn. These type of jokes are so boring now, but given the poster's web site name, it's not really surprising...

Re:Summary (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215040)

Mod parent up. I can't belived no one has mentioned this yet. SCO can't copyright "int i;"!

SCO 335 lines of code = millions of lines? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214986)

Let's do so math, about 335 lines of code is equivalent to Darl math of 2 million lines of code or so. 2 million /335 = 5970. So if we extend SCO-rithmetic to their $5 billion dollar lawsuit (divide by 5970). Then they are really only suing for $863,557.00.

Re:SCO 335 lines of code = millions of lines? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215023)

Yeah but, if you load those lines into vi and hit "yyp" about 1,000,000 times, then you'll have 300 million lines of infringing code, so because of that possibility, they'll call it 300 million lines, and the GPL sucks too k?

JFS. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8214987)

I say JFS should be completley removed from the 2.4 and 2.6 kernel, and replaced by a clean room implementation by someone from outside IBM. Same goes for all other offending bits.

Say what? (3, Interesting)

Pharmboy (216950) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214996)

From SCO's filings: Thus, most versions of UNIX will not operate on Intel-based PC's for desktop computing; and Windows will not operate on RISC-based workstations for enterprise computing.

Perhaps the current versions don't but in the 90s, it DID run on RISC processors, WinNT 3.1, 3.5 and I think even 4.0 ran on MIPS. Since there point was relating to computing "in the 1990s" I would take their point as misleading, at the very least. What they also do not make clear is that the OLD SCO (not Caldera/SCO) was the only proprietary game for x86/unix, but even then Linux and BSD ran x86. Minor, but misleading.

Re:Say what? (3, Insightful)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215097)

Perhaps the current versions don't but in the 90s, it DID run on RISC processors, WinNT 3.1, 3.5 and I think even 4.0 ran on MIPS. Since there point was relating to computing "in the 1990s" I would take their point as misleading, at the very least. What they also do not make clear is that the OLD SCO (not Caldera/SCO) was the only proprietary game for x86/unix, but even then Linux and BSD ran x86. Minor, but misleading.

Moreover Microsoft originally wrote the Xenix code that became SCO UNIX for the Intel 8086 based IBM PC. Windows NT was designed to run on RISC chips from the start. The 'NT' part is the name of the chip it was going to run on. The original code was written on RISC and as recently as 3.5 it ran on the DEC Alpha.

Windows runs on that RISC Intel 64 bit chip they were playing with (whats the name?)

Like the whole point of Windows NT was to be able to move to other chip lines...

Re:Say what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215106)

Truthfully many risc machines ran NT. Alpha, Mips, and PowerPC (maybe others). NT was written to be portable, the whole point of HAL (hardware abstraction layer) still in NT's children. I think that Microsoft actually used Mips R3000s to develop 3.1, (I was a beta tester). The original Xenix (old SCO) was developed as a partnership between SCO and Microsoft!

Not just MIPS. (1)

Doktor Memory (237313) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215112)

NT 4.0 ran on MIPS, Alpha, and (true fact) PowerPC. I'm pretty sure there was also a SPARC port at one time, although it may never have made it out of the lab.

It's long, but interesting. (5, Interesting)

YouHaveSnail (202852) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214997)

Very interesting. According to SCO:

- Linux is derived from System V. (75)
- IBM has endeavored to control the open source community. (76)
- IBM plans to destroy UNIX. (77)
- Linus Torvalds can't say who contributed what to Linux. (78)
- A significant amount of UNIX source code is present in Linux 2.4-2.6 kernels. (79)
- Linux developers are incapable of developing enterprise-grade software without stealing from SCO. (80, 81)
- Only IBM's involvement in Linux made Linux viable for enterprise use, and because IBM had access to System V (82), if follows that
- if follows that Linux is a clone of UNIX. (83)

Re:It's long, but interesting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215101)

It doesn't matter. Somebody forgot to tell SCO that nobody sues IBM and gets away with it. There's at least one good reason they have all those patents.

Haha.. (3, Funny)

jason.mitchell (711646) | more than 10 years ago | (#8214999)

I had no idea SCO owned the rights to #include.. because they claim they do in most of the files they "claim" are stolen. Good job sco.. darl you suck at life.

The claimed code (5, Interesting)

Valar (167606) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215002)

The claimed lines of code appear to be in jfs (which is from AIX, not Sconix), evms (once again from AIX), and RCU. Total number of lines is about 600, plus a few complete files claimed to have be contributed illegally by sequent. I fail to see how IBM is prevented by their contract from contributing their own enhancements (or hell, compatible implementations of their filesystems). The rest of the document seems to just be complaining that with IBM's help, linux is going to wipe a lot of proprietary unixes off of the map. Which I believe fails under the legal term "toughus-fucking-luckus."

Re:The claimed code (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215091)

You forget their viral theory of software development. If it ever ran on a UNIX derived from SVR5, then it belongs to them, according to their strange world view. That is what their submission really reveals about the whole case.

One funny aspect is their complaining about evms, which was only ever distributed by themselves! It is not, and never has been, part of the official kernel.

According to Judge Wells (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215008)

Heise (SCO) insisted, however, that without IBM's compliance, "it is literally impossible" for SCO to itself provide direct proof of the Unix-to-AIX/Dynix-to-Linux continuum it argues exists.
"We're at an impasse and we can't be at an impasse and have this case remain at a standstill," Wells (Judge) responded. "You've made your point -- I'm just not certain I agree."

http://www.sltrib.com/2004/Feb/02072004/business /1 36590.asp

damn.. (0, Redundant)

kidlinux (2550) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215018)

I initially read that headline as

"SCO Complaint Failed -- Including Code Samples"

I guess I'm looking just a little further ahead ;) That woulda been pretty sweet though.

Rest Assured... it's all ok (4, Interesting)

jeffkjo1 (663413) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215024)

They are still flogging JFS, in spite of the widely known reports that both the current AIX and Linux versions were developed from the IBM OS/2 version of JFS.
Any code in common is probably easily found in the OS/2 sources.

The above text was blatently stolen from a groklaw comment.

All Your Codes Are Now Belong To US (SCOX/Caldera) (1)

BigFire (13822) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215059)

It makes perfect sense from the universe that SCOX/Caldera is living in. If you even heard the word UNIX, everything you write are now their property, subject to their copyright/trade secret control.

Which version will this be? (2, Interesting)

gorehog (534288) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215031)

I'm still getting into Linux and BSD, running machines and making the switch. What I'm wondering is if and when will we see distros that feature kernel 2.6 and SCO-free libraries.

BTW, Is BSD suceptible to this SCO complaint?

Re:Which version will this be? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8215071)

Well, first off SCO is the only one that thinks their code in even in Linux.
As for 2.6 in distros, you will want to email your favorite distro and ask!
No, BSD is not suceptible, but they may get sued for other, more retarded reasons later...

In my world SCO is right. (-1, Redundant)

pgnesmith (696733) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215057)

Also, I have family that can be traced back to using vowels before any of you. Therefore, you can no longer use vowels or I will sue you. Unless you pay me per use. Oh yeah, I have also have a patent on bodily functions. You must quit living or I will sue you.

heh. Check out #87 (5, Interesting)

the_Speed_Bump (540796) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215064)

87. By making the Linux operating system free to end users, IBM could undermine and destroy the ability of any of its competitors to charge a fee for distribution of UNIX software in the enterprise market. Thus, IBM, with its army of Global Services integrators who earn money by selling services, would gain a tremendous advantage over all its competitors who earn money by selling UNIX licenses.

Seems like someone's sore because IBM has a better business model.

Reading the pdf... Like this line... (4, Insightful)

RyanFenton (230700) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215069)

"21. By way of example, in the personal computing market, Microsoft Windows is the best known operating system. The Windows operating system was designed to operate on computer processors ("chips") built by Intel. Thus, Windows serves as the link between Intel-based processors and the various software application that run on personal computers."

I count at least 3 major logical errors in that section, and find it's existence in this document unjustified.

1. Windows is not an operating system, but a family of them - Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT are the operating systems.
2. They were not all designed with Intel as the only manufacturer of systems that the OS should work on.
3. The OS does much more than work with processor "chips".

It seems unlikely to me that lawyers proefficient with modern computer systems worked on this document.

It is still full of false and fraudulent clames. (4, Interesting)

arivanov (12034) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215081)

54. At this point in time, IBM's UNIX expertise was centered on its own Power PC processor. IBM had little or no expertise on Intel processors.

Even if we ignore what the term IBM PC means, even if we ignore iRMS, even if we ignore OS2 this still leaves AIX/386 which as far as I recall used to run a considerable part of NATO radar infrastructure. OK, IBM insisted on it being useable only on boards with 1M L2 cache, but I it happily ran on much less then that.

Great quote: IBM doesn't know Intel? (1)

tqft (619476) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215082)

"54. At this point in time, IBM's UNIX expertise was centered on its own Power PC processor. IBM had little or no expertise on Intel processors."

I find this statement using the truth freely.

This would have made sense, in May 2003 (5, Insightful)

aws4y (648874) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215094)

All of the Files are from AIX and Dynx! The only way these conrtibutions are improper is if IBM cannot contribute ANY of its home grown code into linux. There was a bit of a row about this on the LKML before JFS was accepted. I also find this paragraph odd (113 under First Cause of Action)

IBM has violated 2.01 of the Software Agreement by, inter alia, using and assisting others to use the Software Products (including System V source code, derivative works, documentation rrelated thereto and methods based thereon) for external purposes that are different from, and broader than, IBM's own internal business purposes. By actively supporting, assisting and promoting the transfer of UNIX technology to Linux, and using its access to UNIX technology to accomplish this objective, IBM is (a) using the Software Product for external business purposes, which include use for the benefit of Linus Torvalds, the general Linux community and IBM's Linux distribution partners, Red Hat, Inc., Novell, Inc., SuSE Linux AG and their respective subsidiaries; and is (b) directly and indirectly preparing unauthorized derivative works based on the Software Products and unauthorized modifications thereto in violation of 2.01 of the Software Agreement.

Notice that SysV code is not listed amongst the files in the complaint. The above claim is only true in the case that SCO's Idea of a derivative work is valid.

IMHO, this is actually a reasonable leagal document, where there may be an actual dispute over the idea of a derivative work. However, SCO should not be allowed to change its tack in the middle of discovery, until now this case has been about a claim of copying of sysV code and breach of contract, but now they are claiming here that there was no copying and IBM breached its contract by contributing code that IBM owns into Linux. SCO no longer claims, as they did in there initial filing, that IBM improperly contributed sysV code into Linux. This should not be allowed on the grounds that until now, SCO has been using improper contributions of sysV code attempt to persuade people to pay license fees. This also means that SCO has once again lied publicly about the ammount severity of the copying. In fact the Linux community would not be a party to the dispute if JFS, RCU, and NUMA were removed from the kernel. (These documents do not explain how SMP is affected accept by NUMA.) In that case the court cannot ignore what SCO has stated in public, while allowing them to state something substantivly different in court, its one or the other SCO, not both.

In any case Linux is indemnified by the fact that they asked IBM if all of there technologies were contributed in good faith, IBM said yes, and the Kernel development community had no reason not to belive them.

I still think that SCO has a lot of explaining to do when this is all said and done.

How quickly code is replaced will deflate the case (4, Insightful)

BlueCoder (223005) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215099)

When the case is in front of a judge or jury and the timeline for how quickly code is replaced is presented the judge might just dismiss the case right then and there. Simply put in infringement cases you need to have damages. If all they had to do was release the lines of code they claim are infringing and it's replaced by the end of the week that goes to show how valuble that code really was. The most they could possibly get, if the judge found the code non trivial, is about $10,000 to $20,000 dollars just as a penalty. That's why I think a judge could dismiss the case as SCO couldn't pay their lawyers with that.

But chances are the case is too political and the defence would protest to get the code judged as infringing or not. It's a landmark case as to the methodology to determing what is infringing and what is not when it comes to code.

To me at least it takes a signifigant amout of code, tens of kilobites worth that couldn't be replaced within a month. Damages would have to exceed a quarter million dollars just to judtify taking the case to court. When code can be replaced so easily where is it's value?

SCO's requests are all clear now (4, Informative)

lokedhs (672255) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215115)

After seeing the lists of files SCO has published, it's now clear why they have requested every single source release of AIX and Dynix.

If you look at the list, you'll notice that most of the files are header files. These header files are probably available in the off-the-shelf releases of these OS'es. They have then probably does some compare and came up with the resulting list.

If they get all sources from IBM, they probably will perform the exact same comparison, but on all the new files they got.

However, we shouldn't be so worried about this. According to one post [groklaw.net] on groklaw, the contents of these files are mostly #include's anyway.

The last line is actually scary (1)

bluelantern (664962) | more than 10 years ago | (#8215120)

The last line of the complaint is: "SCO demands trial by jury on all issues so triable."

The issues are so complicated and convoluted that, sadly, this trial may come down to "He said, she said."
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...