10 Jul
2003
10 Jul
'03
2:45 p.m.
On Wed, 09 Jul 2003 21:06, Jos�R. Valverde wrote:
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
http://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.
Note 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
should n ever do this but rfc793 doesnt prohibit the change so we have to
deal with it]: ***SOLARIS SOURCE ID REMOVED***
./drivers/net/slhc.c
Looks like the possible 'joke' shared code. Code inspection confirms.
Linux code states that slhc code is (c) by BSD.
4.4BSD-Lite contains the code in ./sys/net/slcompress.c
The same code appears first in 4.3BSD in the same file.
This is NOT therefore SUN/ATT/SCO code, so I guess I can safely comment
on it.
This 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.
Should 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?
The term for that, in relation to something that clearly is a matter of
peoples' reputations, business survivability, etc, is "due diligence".
There 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
comments 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).
That is truly "viral licensing". GPL at least has the grace and honesty to be
up-front about it, and only if the binaries get published. Real "viral
licensing' acts much the way virii do - beneath the skin, out of sight.
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.
That is pretty much what I allege SCO is in fact doing. By extending the
meaning of "derived" to include practically anything, from just
sniffing/looking at an AT&T letterhead to copying the whole kit and caboodle,
they have rendered their contentions null and void, AFAIC.
Furthermore, 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.
MBONE 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 advantage. 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.
Which is the problem with MS's "Shared Source" - developers are staying
away
from it in droves, because nobody can do anything even remotely useful with
the source code.
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.
Were I SCO I'd think twice before hampering licensees ability to
capitalize on market niche differentiations because of claims on
independent, free code developed by _their_ users.
All this, assuming, of course, these are the files in dispute.
So 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
ATT/BSD trial, or even ignore the original author of code reverted back by
UNIX licensees, and that ignoring who wrote what, they may believe it is
all theirs.
"Due diligence" of course. You can take out an airline on that basis (Air New
Zealand springs to mind), much less a little company like SCO's. And "due
diligence" is the more positive approach to it - a vengeful approach talks of
"wilful deception", "fraudulent claims", "defamation of
character", and
suchlike. "Lack of due diligence" is mild.
But, 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.
Other 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.
j
Wesley Parish
--
Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?"
You ask, "What is the most important thing?"
Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata."
I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."