http://www.eetimes.com/sys/news/OEG20030606S0039
Linux-Unix ties spelled out
By Charles J. Murray
EE Times
June 6, 2003 (5:08 p.m. ET)
PARK RIDGE, Ill. � SCO Group revealed the foundation of its legal battle with
the Linux community, when it rolled out evidence of large blocks of Linux code
that it contends were stolen from Unix. Analysts who saw the samples of the
allegedly stolen code said the evidence is damaging and that SCO Group has a
formidable legal case.
�If everything SCO showed me today is true, then the Linux community should be
very concerned,� said Bill Claybrook, research director for Linux and
open-source software at the Aberdeen Group (Boston).
If SCO (Lindon, Utah) prevails in its legal efforts, many observers believe the
action could, at best, result in hundreds of multimillion-dollar licensing
payments from Fortune 1000 companies and, at worst, damage the foundation of
open-source software.
The revelations by the SCO Group Wednesday (June 4) followed a turbulent week
in which the company exchanged both allegations and counterallegations with
Linux supporters and with Novell Inc. (Provo, Utah), which has proclaimed in an
open letter that SCO doesn't own the copyrights and patents to Unix, the
operating system Novell sold to SCO in 1995.
SCO's revelations also served as a response to the Linux community, which has
complained over the past two months that it doubted SCO's contentions of theft
because the company had not publicly disclosed evidence to support its claims.
Claybrook and another analyst who had been given an opportunity to see examples
of the alleged theft said the blocks of Unix and Linux were strikingly similar.
The two blocks of software, they said, contained as many as 80 lines of
identical code, along with identical developers' comments.
�One could argue that developers could write exact or very similar code, but
the developers' comments in the code are basically your DNA, or fingerprints,
for a particular piece of source code,� said Laura DiDio, a senior analyst with
the Yankee Group (Boston), who viewed the evidence.
�It's very unlikely that code and comments could be identical by pure chance,�
Claybrook said.
DiDio and Claybrook said they were given side-by-side copies of Unix and Linux
code to compare. Neither was paid for the work, and both agreed that the
evidence suggests SCO has a strong case in its $1 billion suit against IBM
Corp. and in its scrap with the Linux community.
Linux supporters, however, were quick to question the meaning of the evidence.
�Can SCO prove that this code came from SCO to Linux, and not from Linux to
SCO?� asked Jon �Maddog� Hall, executive director of Linux International
(Nashua, N.H.), a Linux advocacy organization. �Or did the code that's in SCO
Unix come from a third source? Show me the facts,� he said.
SCO's battle with the open-source community grabbed headlines two months ago
when it filed a $1 billion lawsuit in the state court of Utah against IBM,
alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and unfair competition in the Linux
market. In May, on the heels of that suit, SCO sent letters to Fortune 1,000
companies and 500 other businesses advising them to seek legal counsel if they
use Linux.
SCO's actions angered Linux supporters, who allegedly deluged the company with
angry e-mails, threatened drive-by shootings, and posted SCO's executives' home
phone numbers and addresses on Web sites.
On May 28, Novell jumped into the fray, arguing that it never sold the Unix
copyrights or patents to SCO when it consummated the Unix sale in 1995. In an
open letter to SCO, Novell said, �Apparently you share this view, since over
the last few months you have repeatedly asked Novell to transfer the copyrights
to SCO, requests Novell has rejected.�
Novell assailed
In a subsequent news conference on May 30, SCO chief executive officer Darl
McBride lashed out at Novell, restating SCO's claim that it owns the Unix
operating system patents and implying that Novell has a hidden agenda for
insisting otherwise.
�We strongly disagree with Novell's position and view it as a desperate measure
to curry favor with the Linux community,� McBride said.
Last week's analyst revelations, however, cast the battle in a new light. Until
the analysts weighed in, Linux backers had relied on the defense that no one
had seen proof of the allegations. Most said they didn't understand why SCO had
refused to release the alleged infringements for public scrutiny. Some said
they viewed SCO's actions as a means to spread fear, uncertainty and doubt
about open-source software.
But analysts categorically disagreed with that viewpoint last week. �SCO is not
trying to destroy Linux,� said DiDio of the Yankee Group. �That's silly. This
is about paying royalties.�
SCO contends that by co-opting code from Unix, Linux has severely damaged SCO's
intellectual property. According to some estimates, the company collected
annual revenue of between $200 million and $250 million on Unix System 5 (sic)
software before the rise of Linux. After Linux reached the mainstream, those
revenue figures dropped to about $60 million a year.
Because it believes Linux incorporates code that's been �stolen� from Unix, it
has warned hundreds of companies to stop using Linux or start paying royalties.
�SCO's words were that Linux distributors and others who are using Linux are
'distributing stolen goods,' � said Claybrook of Aberdeen Group.
Some companies, such as Sun Microsystems Inc., already pay hefty royalties to
SCO for Unix. Two weeks ago, Microsoft Corp. joined that group when it agreed
to pay royalties that were said to be �significantly in excess of $10 million,�
one source said. Microsoft declined to comment on the details.
Facing a choice
Many observers believe SCO's case is bolstered by the fact that it is
represented by high-powered attorney David Boies, who prosecuted the Microsoft
antitrust case and represented Al Gore in the 2000 presidential election
vote-counting scandal.
Analysts said IBM will be the first company to face a choice in the legal
matter. �If IBM wants to cure this problem, they could start by buying all the
appropriate licenses and then paying SCO a billion dollars,� Claybrook said.
�But SCO now says that a billion may not be enough to cover their damages.�
Users of Linux also face a decision about whether to ignore SCO's letters or
pay for a license. Analysts said companies may face that decision as soon as
June 13, the date on which SCO has threatened to terminate its existing Unix
contracts with IBM.
Intellectual-property attorneys advise that companies that received a letter
from SCO first determine whether IBM is indemnifying them, as users, against
legal action.
IBM, for its part, has said it doesn't intend to respond to SCO's threat. �We
believe our contact is perpetual and irrevocable,� an IBM spokeswoman said.
�We've already paid for it, and there is nothing else we need to do.�
Whether the legal actions will harm Linux in the long run is still open to
question, experts said.
The Linux community, unconvinced by SCO's actions, says it is still waiting for
more solid proof that SCO really has a case. Most say that showing the alleged
violations to a few analysts who sign nondisclosure agreements isn't enough.
�We still don't see the need for secrecy,� said Hall of Linux International.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
http://calendar.yahoo.com
What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone
can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given
this book:
The Design of the UNIX Operating System,
Maurice J. Bach.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986.
ISBN 0-13-201799-7.
There's also these:
The Magic Garden Explained:
The Internals of Unix System V Release 4:
An Open Systems Design,
Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994.
ISBN 0-13-098138-9.
Unix Internals: The New Frontiers,
Uresh Vahalia.
Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996.
ISBN 0-13-101908-2.
According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005.
The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T
didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in
print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't
contain actual source code, but let's get real here...
Arnold
> add on the lion book
Yes, that's been officially published, as well as in N-th generation
photo copies. But the books I cited are for System V, including SVR4,
which is much more relevant for the issue under discussion...
Pfui. What a mess this whole business is.
Arnold
add on the lion book
>From: Aharon Robbins <arnold(a)skeeve.com>
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] SCO vs. IBM: NOVELL steps up to the plate
>Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 12:56:08 +0300
>
>What I find fascinating (and that no-one has mentioned yet) is how anyone
>can claim that Unix internals are still trade secret, especially given
>this book:
>
> The Design of the UNIX Operating System,
> Maurice J. Bach.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1986.
> ISBN 0-13-201799-7.
>
>There's also these:
>
> The Magic Garden Explained:
> The Internals of Unix System V Release 4:
> An Open Systems Design,
> Berny Goodheart, James Cox, John R. Mashey.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1994.
> ISBN 0-13-098138-9.
>
> Unix Internals: The New Frontiers,
> Uresh Vahalia.
> Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA, 1996.
> ISBN 0-13-101908-2.
> According to Amazon.com, a new edition is scheduled for 2005.
>
>The Bach book, in particular, is a rather large smoking gun that AT&T
>didn't care a huge amount about trade secrets. The book is still in
>print (and selling for a whopping $69.97 on Amazon.com!) It doesn't
>contain actual source code, but let's get real here...
>
>Arnold
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
keneth
thanks for the interesting infos , you solved a big puzzle for me :-) now I
know why the screen is acting rather strange. !
cheers
>From: Kenneth Stailey <kstailey(a)yahoo.com>
>To: zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com>
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7
>Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 15:23:56 -0700 (PDT)
>
>Seveth Edition UNIX assumed hardcopy terminal and did not have a terminal
>pager.
>
>Because of that assumption it also cannot backspace the way you would want
>it
>to on a CRT.
>
>Use "#" for backspace "@" for kill line (modern version is Ctrl-U).
>Characters
>will not be erased on screen but they will be discarded from the input
>line.
>
>--- zmkm zmkm <new_zmkm(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi all
> >
> > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7
>? ,
> > like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) .
> >
> > tks in advance for the infos.
> >
> > rgs to all
> > zmkm
> >
> > _________________________________________________________________
> > Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
> > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > TUHS mailing list
> > TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
> > http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
>
>
>__________________________________
>Do you Yahoo!?
>Yahoo! Calendar - Free online calendar with sync to Outlook(TM).
>http://calendar.yahoo.com
_________________________________________________________________
Help STOP SPAM with the new MSN 8 and get 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
Thanks guys ,
I think I am going to stick to bwc suggestion it looks suitable , I got the
book and found it so IÂ’ll work on it asap.
tks
>From: Carl Lowenstein <cdl(a)mpl.ucsd.edu>
>To: tuhs(a)tuhs.org
>Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7
>Date: Sat, 7 Jun 2003 19:21:35 -0700 (PDT)
>
> > Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:59:44 +1000
> > From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org>
> > To: The Unix Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
> > Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:29:30PM +0000, zmkm zmkm wrote:
> > > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on
>unix7 ?
> > > , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) .
> >
> > lp ? :-)
> > Warren
>
>I think I remember being able to use the hardware Scroll Lock on a
>VT05 terminal with some variety of Unix, perhaps late 6th Edition.
>
> carl
>--
> carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
> clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
>_______________________________________________
>TUHS mailing list
>TUHS(a)minnie.tuhs.org
>http://minnie.tuhs.org/mailman/listinfo/tuhs
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
> Date: Sun, 8 Jun 2003 10:59:44 +1000
> From: Warren Toomey <wkt(a)tuhs.org>
> To: The Unix Heritage Society <tuhs(a)tuhs.org>
> Subject: Re: [TUHS] a question re pdp11 unix7
>
> On Sat, Jun 07, 2003 at 05:29:30PM +0000, zmkm zmkm wrote:
> > just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 ?
> > , like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) .
>
> lp ? :-)
> Warren
I think I remember being able to use the hardware Scroll Lock on a
VT05 terminal with some variety of Unix, perhaps late 6th Edition.
carl
--
carl lowenstein marine physical lab u.c. san diego
clowenst(a)ucsd.edu
Hi all
just a quick question about pdp11 unix7 , what's the pg command on unix7 ? ,
like later versions of unix was pg as in ( ls -l | pg ) .
tks in advance for the infos.
rgs to all
zmkm
_________________________________________________________________
Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail
I've located a paper which describes the system, which I've put
up along with the disc image in www.spies.com/aek/solo
I'll see about extracting all of the files.
