SCO code leak

[mobrien_12]

It looks like someone leaked some of SCO's evidence.

Slashdot

More details can be found at  
lwn.net

And an Analysis has been written by Bruce Perens.

This hasn't been confirmed.  But there are alot of buzz generated... of this the most important points I can pick out are

The code is for a malloc() implementation.

The code was in BSD 2.1.  

The code was also released by SCO under the BSD licence last year, although it should have copyright notices in it (if it was taken from the SCO released code).

The code was used ONLY in the IA64 version.

The code doesn't exist in kernel 2.5 (already replaced).

The code was published in a book many years ago.

The code is so basic it may not be copyrightable.

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[ August 19, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[suselinux]

SCO is saying that there are more than one MILLION lines of offending code

this just gets better and better, eh

eweek atricle picked up from /.


Jeff Gerhardt
 

quote: we want to be able to look at the offending code without prejudicing our future careers and so that we can remove any offending code, even if that is a million lines," Jeff Gerhardt

[ August 20, 2003: Message edited by: suselinux ]

[Stryker]

int func1(int a) {
return a;
}

I said it first, if I see any program have that in it i'm going to throw a fit.   :rolleyes:

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by suselinux:
SCO is saying that there are more than one MILLION lines of offending code

*silence*

SCO needs to %^&* off and die.

[ August 20, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[jasonlane]

I hope $CO get hung drawn and quatered. I also hope a definite link back to M$ comes out.

[mobrien_12]

Linus has a good answer to this millions of lines claim:

"They are smoking crack."

Interesting interview with Linus about this crap at eweek.

[ August 21, 2003: Message edited by: M. O'Brien ]

[Calum]

i've been following this over at www.promote-opensource.org where these updates get more or less served on a plate daily!

i think perens' and torvalds' response is reassuring.

also i saw somebody point out before that SCO also say linux 2.2 does not contain any infringed code, while linux 2.4 contains the 1 million lines of stolen code (this would seem to be so SCO can justify their decision to distribute linux until recently) however there are not 1 million lines of difference between 2.2 and 2.4.

[M51DPS]

This could have been a good opportunity for SCO to pull up a complex piece of code that was obviously copied (yeah, like that'll ever happen), and even research it to make absolutely sure. If this is the best they could come up with, they're worse off than I thought they were.

[mobrien_12]

quote:Originally posted by M51DPS X:
This could have been a good opportunity for SCO to pull up a complex piece of code.

The latest one I heard about was an example from SCO about how Linux programmers had obfuscated lines of code to disguise the code lifts.

The example was the BSDI packet filter.  SCO had lifted the code from BSD directly (which they are allowed to do under BSD licence).  Linux people, who had some pride, improved on it (thus it looks different).

I think Linus is right. SCO must be smoking crack.  Either that or this is all just some brilliant red herring.