Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[The Spirit of Open Source]

This C|Net news article says the SCO Group claims to have found many instances
of copyrighted UnixWare source code being inserted verbatim into the Linux
kernel:

	http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1016_3-999371.html

I can see a Linux developer copying copy from one of BSDs (which is cool), but
UnixWare?!?  Come on.

If there's UnixWare source in the Linux kernel, a SCO Group employee put it
there!  After all, who else would have such easy access to UnixWare sources?

If a SCO Group employee put the UnixWare source code into Linux, that begs the
question:

	Did the SCO Group conspire to plant copyrighted code in the Linux
	kernel so they could sue IBM for US$1 billion?

I believe the Justice Department calls that fraud, and that's a crime that CEOs
go to jail for.  Are you listening Darl McBride?

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Chris Friesen]

The Spirit of Open Source wrote:
> This C|Net news article says the SCO Group claims to have found many instances
> of copyrighted UnixWare source code being inserted verbatim into the Linux
> kernel:


According to an article here:

http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/01/2332226.shtml?tid=167&tid=99

SCO-Caldera Senior Vice President Chris Sontag explicitly says that the 
kernel.org kernel is *not* tainted, but that that other stuff that Red Hat and 
SuSE are including *is*.

Quote from the interview:

"Chris Sontag: We're not talking about the Linux kernel that Linus and others 
have helped develop. We're talking about what's on the periphery of the Linux 
kernel."

He doesn't specify exactly what he's talking about, but he makes an interesting 
claim:

"Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of our 
UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. We are 
coming across many instances where our proprietary software has simply been 
copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our System V code in 
Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to address with many Linux 
distribution companies at some point."


Chris



-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Christoph Hellwig]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 03:21:36AM -0000, The Spirit of Open Source wrote:
> If there's UnixWare source in the Linux kernel, a SCO Group employee put it
> there!  After all, who else would have such easy access to UnixWare sources?

As somone who walked for SCO (or rather Caldera how it was called at that
time) I can tell you this is utter crap.  There were very people actually
doing Linux kernel work then (and when the German office was closed down
all those left the company) and we really had better things to do then
trying to retrofit UnixWare code into the linux kenrel.  Especially given
that the kernel internals are so different that you'd need a big glue
layer to actually make it work and you can guess how that would be
ripped apart in a usual lkml review :)

It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[jlnance]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:43:49AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
> I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
> the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they
say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee
ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware.  That is
actually far more likely than what they alledge.

Jim

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[jw schultz]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 08:57:35AM -0400, jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu wrote:
> On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:43:49AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> > It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
> > I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
> > the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..
> 
> Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they
> say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee
> ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware.  That is
> actually far more likely than what they alledge.

Much of the commonality is probably no more a copy than
having "her bosom heaved with anticipation" in a romance
novel.

As for Linux code in UnixWare, I seriously doubt there is
that much code in UnixWare that was introduced by
SCO/Caldera or Novell.  Almost all of it came to them via
USL as part of SVR4.

Actually, my guess is that any extensive code similarity is
likely to be code incorporated into SVR4 from BSD or other
sources and not SCO property.  The parade of copyright
notices on SVR4 boot is a long one.

-- 
________________________________________________________________
	J.W. Schultz            Pegasystems Technologies
	email address:		jw@pegasys.ws

		Remember Cernan and Schmitt

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Daniel Phillips]

Hi Christoph,

On Fri 02 May 03 07:43, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
> I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
> the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

So... we should check UnixWare to see if any of the Ext2 support is provided 
by GPL code ripped and distributed under the UnixWare license, which is 
presumably not compatible with the GPL?

I know that's what you meant, I just thought I'd spell it out.  To date, I've 
never had the slightest interest in UnixWare, but now I'm getting at least a 
little interested.  UnixWare includes Ext2 support?  The UnixWare license 
doesn't guarantee the user can have the source?

Regards,

Daniel

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

The Spirit of Open Source <tsoos@scoloses.org> wrote:

[ bla bla bla snipped]

me@linux:~> whois scoloses.org

Whois Server Version 1.3

No match for "SCOLOSES.ORG".

>>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 2 May 2003 05:57:11 EDT <<<

    _---________---__________
   |                         }
  /    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL \
  \____                    __/
       -------------------`
               |#:|
               |#:|
               |#:|
            \\\|#:|/ /
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[John Jasen]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

> me@linux:~> whois scoloses.org
> 
> Whois Server Version 1.3
> 
> No match for "SCOLOSES.ORG".
> 
> >>> Last update of whois database: Fri, 2 May 2003 05:57:11 EDT <<<

.org has been moved, and whois has not worked right since then for all 
.org domains. Really. Check out whois for spca.org, redcross.org, etc ...

>     _---________---__________
>    |                         }
>   /    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL \
>   \____                    __/
>        -------------------`
>                |#:|
>                |#:|
>                |#:|
>             \\\|#:|/ /
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Depends on who the troll is.

-- 
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen@realityfailure.org)
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

John Jasen wrote:

> On Fri, 2 May 2003, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> 
> 
>>me@linux:~> whois scoloses.org
>>
>>Whois Server Version 1.3
>>
>>No match for "SCOLOSES.ORG".
>>
>>
>>>>>Last update of whois database: Fri, 2 May 2003 05:57:11 EDT <<<
> 
> 
> .org has been moved, and whois has not worked right since then for all 
> .org domains. Really. Check out whois for spca.org, redcross.org, etc ...

whois has worked right since then for all .org domains. Really.

me@linux:~> whois -h whois.pir.org scoloses.org
NOT FOUND

me@linux:~> whois -h whois.pir.org redcross.org
NOTICE: Access to .ORG WHOIS information is provided to assist persons
in determining the contents of a domain name registration record in the
PIR registry database.
[rest of legalese snipped]

Domain ID:D3201715-LROR
Domain Name:REDCROSS.ORG
Created On:05-Sep-1995 04:00:00 UTC
Last Updated On:14-Mar-2003 21:46:12 UTC
Expiration Date:04-Sep-2010 04:00:00 UTC
Sponsoring Registrar:R63-LROR
Status:OK
[rest of status snipped]

This should be enough to prove my point.

> 
>>    _---________---__________
>>   |                         }
>>  /    DO NOT FEED THE TROLL \
>>  \____                    __/
>>       -------------------`
>>               |#:|
>>               |#:|
>>               |#:|
>>            \\\|#:|/ /
>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> 
> Depends on who the troll is.

Exactly.


Carl-Daniel

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[John Jasen]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:

> whois has worked right since then for all .org domains. Really.

No, not really. There are a few .org names that they still don't spit out 
anything for.

Really. I admin them. Really.

I did check on the availability of scoloses.org, and my registrar seems to 
think its available, so I cede the point.

-- 
-- John E. Jasen (jjasen@realityfailure.org)
-- User Error #2361: Please insert coffee and try again.

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Carl-Daniel Hailfinger]

John Jasen wrote:
> On Fri, 2 May 2003, Carl-Daniel Hailfinger wrote:
> 
> 
>>whois has worked right since then for all .org domains. Really.

A patched whois, that is. Sorry I forgot to point that out.

> No, not really. There are a few .org names that they still don't spit out 
> anything for.
> 
> Really. I admin them. Really.

I believe you. With an unpatched whois, no .org domain should ever be
found. In absence of a patch, please try
whois -h whois.pir.org <domainname.org>
instead of whois <domainname.org> . That should cure the problem.

> I did check on the availability of scoloses.org, and my registrar seems to 
> think its available, so I cede the point.

Thanks anyway for pointing out the problem with unpatched whois. I guess
my first comment was a bit misleading in light of that.

HTH,
Carl-Daniel

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Nomen Nescio]

> The Spirit of Open Source wrote:
> > This C|Net news article says the SCO Group claims to have found many instances
> > of copyrighted UnixWare source code being inserted verbatim into the Linux
> > kernel:
> 
> According to an article here:
> 
> http://slashdot.org/articles/03/05/01/2332226.shtml?tid=167&tid=99
> 
> SCO-Caldera Senior Vice President Chris Sontag explicitly says that the
> kernel.org kernel is *not* tainted, but that that other stuff that Red Hat and
> SuSE are including *is*.

Hmm.  SCO Group Chief Executive Darl McBride says _exactly_ the opposite
according to http://msnbc-cnet.com.com/2100-1016_3-999371.html :

    "We're finding ... cases where there is line-by-line code in the Linux kernel
    that is matching up to our UnixWare code.

    We're finding code that looks likes it's been obfuscated to make it look
    like it wasn't UnixWare code -- but it was."

Chris Sontag should get his story straight with his boss before he opens his
mouth to the press.

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Chris Friesen]

Nomen Nescio wrote:

> Chris Sontag should get his story straight with his boss before he opens his
> mouth to the press.

I think the key is the "kernel.org kernel" part.  Red Hat and SuSE both include 
a bunch of additional patches to the "official" kernel.

Chris



-- 
Chris Friesen                    | MailStop: 043/33/F10
Nortel Networks                  | work: (613) 765-0557
3500 Carling Avenue              | fax:  (613) 765-2986
Nepean, ON K2H 8E9 Canada        | email: cfriesen@nortelnetworks.com

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Ben Collins]

> "Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of 
> our UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. 
> We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has 
> simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our 
> System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to 
> address with many Linux distribution companies at some point."

This almost sounds like they are pointing to userspace code rather than
kernel code. I know Redhat and other dists put patches on their kernels,
but I seriously doubt it's anything like retrofiting UnixWare code. It's
more like supporting newer hardware, performance tweaking, and such.

-- 
Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Balram Adlakha]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1539 bytes --]

On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 10:06:03AM -0400, Ben Collins wrote:
> > "Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of 
> > our UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example. 
> > We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has 
> > simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our 
> > System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to 
> > address with many Linux distribution companies at some point."
> 
> This almost sounds like they are pointing to userspace code rather than
> kernel code. I know Redhat and other dists put patches on their kernels,
> but I seriously doubt it's anything like retrofiting UnixWare code. It's
> more like supporting newer hardware, performance tweaking, and such.
> 
> -- 
> Debian     - http://www.debian.org/
> Linux 1394 - http://www.linux1394.org/
> Subversion - http://subversion.tigris.org/
> Deqo       - http://www.deqo.com/
> -
> To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
> the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
> More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
> Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/


They are pointing to nothing. They do not know themselves what they are 
talking about. SCO is dead now, they have nothing else to do except for 
framing other projects. If this thing was true they could have just 
pointed out where exactly the stolen code was.
-- 

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 189 bytes --]

Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Ben Collins wrote:

> > "Chris Sontag: We are using objective third parties to do comparisons of
> > our UNIX System V [SCO-owned Unix] source code and Red Hat as an example.
> > We are coming across many instances where our proprietary software has
> > simply been copied and pasted or changed in order to hide the origin of our
> > System V code in Red Hat. This is the kind of thing that we will need to
> > address with many Linux distribution companies at some point."
>
> This almost sounds like they are pointing to userspace code rather than
> kernel code. I know Redhat and other dists put patches on their kernels,
> but I seriously doubt it's anything like retrofiting UnixWare code. It's
> more like supporting newer hardware, performance tweaking, and such.
>

SCO moved to Linux a long time ago. This must be from some joke-troll.
The SCO-Unix just wouldn't hack it and before the Santa Cruz Operation
started to supply Linux to their customers, they were in serious trouble.
Caldera/SCO/LinuxWare -- they are all the same company now, are they
planning to sue their divisions???

This just doesn't make any sense and seems to be some garbage invented
by media-hypes, err types.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

RE: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Downing, Thomas]

Has anybody had a look at VxWorks code?  Some of it looks 
suspicious to me... 

-----Original Message-----
From: jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu [mailto:jlnance@unity.ncsu.edu]
Sent: Friday, May 02, 2003 8:58 AM
To: Christoph Hellwig
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux
kernel?


On Fri, May 02, 2003 at 06:43:49AM +0100, Christoph Hellwig wrote:

> It might be more interesting to look for stolen Linux code in Unixware,
> I'd suggest with the support for a very well known Linux fileystem in
> the Linux compat addon product for UnixWare..

Wouldnt it be halirous if whatever code SCO is talking about when they
say there is Unix code in Linux turns out to be code some SCO employee
ripped out of some GPL program and stuck it into Unixware.  That is
actually far more likely than what they alledge.

Jim
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

RE: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Richard B. Johnson]

On Fri, 2 May 2003, Downing, Thomas wrote:

> Has anybody had a look at VxWorks code?  Some of it looks
> suspicious to me...

ALL but the signon.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.4.20 on an i686 machine (797.90 BogoMips).
Why is the government concerned about the lunatic fringe? Think about it.

RE: Did the SCO Group plant UnixWare source in the Linux kernel?

[Downing, Thomas]

From: Richard B. Johnson [mailto:root@chaos.analogic.com]

[snip] 
> This just doesn't make any sense and seems to be some garbage invented
> by media-hypes, err types.

It doesn't have to make sense - look who they hired as the lead counsel
for this 'get the unlicensed UN*X' push :-(