[NBLUG/talk] [TUHS] Comparing Linux code (fwd)

[Andru Luvisi]

I thought this might be of interest to those of you following the SCO/IBM
discussion.  It was posted to The Unix Heritage Society mailing list.

Andru

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Wed, 9 Jul 2003 11:06:34 +0200
From: Jos=E9 R. Valverde <jrvalverde at cnb.uam.es>
To: tuhs at minnie.tuhs.org
Subject: [TUHS] Comparing Linux code

Pardon me for posting not being a subscriber, I already subscribe to too
many lists and I prefer to readd the archives at Minnie.

I've used the procedures described in

=09http://www.rickbradley.com/chron/20030619/

to compare the code in Linux with the code of Solaris. There are a few
striking comments shared by .c files, some actually containing "jokes".
However.

=09Note that I'll NOT comment on anything I've seen in the Solaris
code. I'll only talk of my own experience and what LINUX/BSD code says.

Matches for [argh urg not set but urp changed a sensible implementation sho=
uld n
ever do this but rfc793 doesnt prohibit the change so we have to deal with =
it]:
***SOLARIS SOURCE ID REMOVED***
=2E/drivers/net/slhc.c

=09Looks like the possible 'joke' shared code. Code inspection confirms.
=09Linux code states that slhc code is (c) by BSD.
=094.4BSD-Lite contains the code in ./sys/net/slcompress.c
=09The same code appears first in 4.3BSD in the same file.
=09This is NOT therefore SUN/ATT/SCO code, so I guess I can safely comment
on it.
=09This looks like one of those infamous source files from BSD whose
copyright comments where stripped before the BSD/ATT lawsuit. SCO might
preserve the original, pre-lawsuit ATT code (without the (c) notice) and
_believe_ it to be theirs. Actually it makes sense in the UNIX sellout
turmoil after the lawsuit that the BSD copyrights were forgotten to be
merged back in the code.

=09Should it be so, then perhaps SCO zealots did the so much aired
comparison UNIX/Linux but did not care to check their own source code
against BSD, thus slipping on this one?

=09There is another source file which _might_ be contaminated, but I
can't tell in which direction this might have happened. I won't venture
breaking confidentiality agreements, but this I believe I can say: I know
from experinece this file has suffered extense enhancements during the '90s=
,
most of which were done by independent developers for Suns. The LINUX comme=
nts
identify the author as an independent developer of world fame in the area
indicating the routines were originally developed for SUN and DEC, so if
SCO has any claims it might only be by "license contamination" (i.e. any
independent addition must belong to me no matter how indirect because I say
so). Actually it might be that Sun and DEC added the changes contributed to
them and provided them back to the UNIX reference source. In that case,
SCO will have a hard time to claim the code belongs to them and they are
not stealing other people's contributed code.

=09Furthermore, if they still claim it's theirs 'cos of license
contamination, they will put a hard stress on UNIX vendors: in the '90s
some vendors survived mainly because of specialized market niches (e.g. MBO=
NE
on Sun, graphics on SGI, etc..): everybody in some field would use the same
system, users would contribute fixes to them, and this gave them an advanta=
ge.
Now, if people see that contributing to any system will make them lose
rights over their own code, in the future they won't tie themselves to any
specific vendor, and vendors will lose the opportunity of taking advantage
of specialized user groups to increase their competitivity. Now, imagine
where would Sun be if they had never been able to differentiate themselves
as, say, the 'dot com' company during the Internet boom.

=09Were I SCO I'd think twice before hampering licensees ability to
capitalize on market niche differentiations because of claims on independen=
t,
free code developed by _their_ users.

=09All this, assuming, of course, these are the files in dispute.

=09So far, and assuming these are the files, it mostly looks like external
additions to SCO code that lost the original copyright references. It is
understandable that SCO modern engineers ignore what happened before the AT=
T/BSD
trial, or even ignore the original author of code reverted back by UNIX lic=
ensees,
and that ignoring who wrote what, they may believe it is all theirs.

=09But, if these were the files, they'll have a hard time. First for not
checking correctly their claims (agains say, BSD code), second for not
acknowledging nor keeping track of original authors of contributed code,
and finally for claiming ownership of code that does not belong to them.

=09Other files share some odd small comment, often it looks like pure
chance, machine/vendor dependent code (probably not ATT/SCO therefore) or
common sense, so I didn't investigate those any further.

=09=09=09=09j

--=20
=09These opinions are mine and only mine. Hey man, I saw them first!

=09=09=09    Jos=E9 R. Valverde

=09De nada sirve la Inteligencia Artificial cuando falta la Natural
_______________________________________________
TUHS mailing list
TUHS at minnie.tuhs.org
http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs