Randall Davis: IBM Has No SCO Code 405
Mick Ohrberg writes "As reported by Groklaw, Randall Davis, renowned professor of Computer Science at MIT has after an extensive search found no evidence of SCO's claims that IBM has incorporated parts of the Unix System V code. Davis says "Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on the Unix System V Code." Surprised, anyone?"
Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
We showed over a million lines of code and where it has existed. [Linux creator] Linus Torvalds has told me that the Linux kernel has around 5 million lines of code. This derivative code accounts for 20 percent of the Linux code base."
Q&A: SCO Group CEO Darl McBride By Michael Singer
http://www.internetnews.com/ent-news/article.php/
WTF! This guy can find a single line!! he must be blind! The CEO of SCO says that 1/5 of linux is a copy. Darl Mcbride would not lie!!!
Remeber SCO owns c++ too!
"And C++ programming languages, we own those" -Darl McBride
Caldera CEO waves UnitedLinux banner By ZDNet Staff August 15, 2002 http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/ma
Re:Wait... (Score:3, Informative)
"And C++ programming languages, we own those" -Darl McBride
And nobody was more surprised to hear it than Bjarne Stroustrup [att.com] himself!
Re:What did Didio see? (Score:5, Informative)
Davis saw no -infringing- code. That's not the same thing as seeing no common code. Copying a ten-line function almost verbatim is likely a copyright violation. Ending up with a handful of lines that look a lot alike, by contrast, is often just an unavoidable side-effect of writing two pieces of code that do the same thing.
Small blocks of code (under 3 lines) are generally not protected by copyright (unless we're talking obfuscated C lines). Even larger blocks of code may not be protected, depending on content.
For example, in many cases (drivers come to mind), there may only be exactly one way to do something (e.g. you must set this register to 1, wait 5 ms, set it to zero, wait 5 ms, then set a second register to 1), in which case those specific bits are unlikely to be copyrightable at all, even if they represent a fairly substantial number of lines of code.
Also, in order for the code to be infringing, it must have been taken from AT&T UNIX or its descendants, and must not have been put there by someone who owned copyright on said code. That means that A. the code must not have been placed there by anyone working for SCO or Novell, and B. the code must not have come from a third, shared source such as BSD. A very large chunk of SCO's UNIX code fails the "B." test, and SCO was an active contributor to Linux, so many cases where code appears the same could easily fail the "A." test as well.
Re:What did Didio see? (Score:3, Interesting)
SO why is she publishing that she was copied code? If she does not have the qualifications to make such a decision then she certainly then she certainly should not be advising investors based on such analysis.
"Davis saw no -infringing- code. That's not the same thing as seeing no common code. Copying a ten-line function almost verbatim is likely a copyright violation. Ending up wi
Figures... (Score:3, Funny)
Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Interesting)
It surely wouldn't have been hard to take some, say, early and "in the clear" code that has been reused and modified over time to show both that it can be identified and to show how code that has evolved can still leave the fingerprint of the original code. Without that counter example the failure to find matches would seem underwhelming. (The closest the testimony came to this was showing a positive result that was generated and showing how it was a commonly repeated pattern in all software written in C, not something specific to these two programs).
Perhaps elsewhere in IBMs testimony there was reference to this same procedure being successfully?
Counterexample DIY (Score:5, Insightful)
2. Get Linux 2.4.0
3. left out as an exercise for the reader
4. Show positive result
5. Don't profit, but have fun.
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
Everyone is getting so far off base on this.
SCO is manging to convince people that this is somehow difficult to prove.. that they need more research and more time to PROVE that IBM stole code and put it in linux. Their only claim as to why they think Linux has SCO code is "because there is no way linux could have become as good as it did without stealing from us".. ie: denial
They have yet to show ONE section of code that was lifted. They haven't even shown how one was *similar* enough to have potentially been stolen and heavily modified.. they have shown *NOTHING*
IT's called an expert witness... and their word DOES mean something to the court.. they stake their reputation on it.
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've been thinking this was strange too. After all, if code was copied into Linux it is essentially a public document now - out there for everyone to see. All SCO would have to do is download it and print it out side-by-side with a copy of their matching code. Case closed. SCO wins.
The fact that they haven't done this extremely simple thing seems to strongly point to SCO being a bunch of total bullshitters. Even if some malicious programmer intentionally stole code and modified it slightly (changed variable names, comments, re-arranged the order of functions in header files, etc.) it should be pretty trivial to show a judge what happened and move on to the 'get sacks of cash from IBM' phase of the trial.
Funny, you would think that a company that is suffering continuous, ongoing harm to the tune of US$699 per user would be pretty quick to do such a thing...
LAW (Score:3, Insightful)
It only takes a . out of line to sway the legal result, not necessary the correct and right result.
It not over until the fat penguin sings, then we can all rejoice.
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:3, Informative)
That's the SCO argument, isn't it, that derivative works are theirs by copyright. Trouble is that the law is different. Copyright covers the representation not the idea. And for software having malloc() in two pieces of code doesn't rise to copyright
Re:Counter example would have helped. (Score:5, Insightful)
It just hit me: He doesn't have to. It's SCO's responsibility to show that there is infringing code in Linux. It's not IBM's responsibility to show that there is none. All that Davis has to prove is that the search is feasible in a reasonable ammount of time (as opposed to SCO's claim of 25,000 man-years). He's done this admirably. Not being able to find anything is simply icing on the cake.
One beautiful thing about this is that (AFAICT) all (or almost all) of the software he used seems to be Open source (although he has references some similar commercial software), so SCO has absolutely no excuse to not repeat his experiment and come up with different results (presuming that they've actually got a case), given that it takes about 1 hour to run the comparison on off-the-shelf hardware.
The other beautiful thing about this is -- remember Darl's remarks about an MIT team deep-diving the code?...... (boot to the head!)
"I've shown you mine, now you show me yours!"
In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
More at 11.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
rocks are wet and water is hard...
Re:In other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Also, magma and ice not being capable of existing in the same environmental conditions, may not meet the requirements of proper experimental research, therefore all experiments must be carried out at 0 degrees kelvin to avoid corruption of data, atmospheric pressure may be designated by the experimenter.
Re:In other news... (Score:4, Funny)
*bows*
Wait... I don't have to commit nerd ritual suicide now, do I?
*prepares to FLEE*
Really??!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Really??!! (Score:2)
Re:Really??!! (Score:3, Funny)
* Runs off crying. *
Re:Really??!! (Score:4, Funny)
Kind OF Honest? well you're getting closer
Re:Really??!! (Score:3, Informative)
To be fair, noone says they aren't, except an expert who was payed a lot of money (550/hr) by IBM to say so.
To you and I that would be a lot of money, but TSG is willing to pay BS&F many multiples of that (their law firm charges over $600/hr per lawyer, more for courtroom time. Mr. Silver was paid for 3 hours in this last hearing AND HE SLEPT THROUGH PART OF IT) for their expertice, why should IBM be less willing to spend money for expertice o
Friendly logic lesson. (Score:3, Informative)
Your logic is flawed. If not true, it's unclear whether it's interesting.
Your conclusion would be true if your premise were "interesting if and only if true."
At $550 per hour... (Score:5, Funny)
20. These comparisons required on the order of 10 hours of computation time on a dual 3 GHz Xeon processor system with 2 GB of RAM. This is a high-end workstation routinely and easily available off the shelf from commercial vendors such as Dell.
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:5, Funny)
At $550 per hour, I would've used something like a 386 processor with 8MB of RAM.
Hell, I would have built a wetware turing machine using a dozen grad students armed with abacii. In treacle. With Natalie Portman implementing the I/O subsystem.
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:2)
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:5, Funny)
Inevitably,...
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of grad students armed with abacii,....
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:4, Insightful)
I guess that's one reason they didn't hire you.
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:At $550 per hour... (Score:4, Informative)
I expect it took more than 10 hours for him to write that document and painstakingly verify its accuracy and wording to avoid perjury. He'll likely spend significant amounts of time testifying in person on the subject as well.
That rate is high but within reason for top-end expert witnesses (which is exactly what he is.) It's not uncommon for renowned professors to make a substantial second income by acting as an expert witness (very common in the chemistry and biology fields, at least.)
Finally, IBM would not even blink if they were handed a bill for several hundred hours at $550 each on this issue. They may even get some of the money back, depending on the details of the final settlement and the subsequent SCO bankruptcy.
What about all of these? (Score:5, Funny)
*/
while(1)
{
}
return(0);
return(1);
i
elseif (...)
else
And don't forget the white space! That is a clear copy!
Re:What about all of these? (Score:5, Funny)
Your compiler: We hates it, it burns us, precious, nasty syntax it is!
Re:What about all of these? (Score:3, Funny)
Wouldn't it be cool to run all of GCC's text messages through some sort of "Gollumnizer" (like the perl script out there that can convert english to Yoda-like phrasing)?
Hell you could even rename it:
"Gollum's Compiler Collection"
in other news... (Score:3, Funny)
Wade'da'minute... (Score:2, Insightful)
Which method is covered for source code comparisions?
1. two printouts held together and up toward a lighted source?
2. side-by-side subjective eyeball comparision
3. diff (and all derivative comparision tools)
4. diff with some wiggle-room command line options?
5. NSA-grade pattern analysis supercomputer?
I'm slightly guarded here, but these SCO FUD-busting articles seemed very promising...
Read the PDF... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Read the PDF's methodology (Score:3, Informative)
1. ideas
2. purposes
3. procedures
4. processes
5. system
6. method of operations
7. facts
8. unoriginal elements
WOW! Okey Doke. So, now the IBM legal team is really looking for "copy-cat" aspect of which we, the community, are certain there aren't any (save for a few comments).
1. Ideas can't be copyrighted (but they can be patented).
2. Purposes can't be copyrighted.
3. Procedures can't be copyrighted (but they can be patented).
4. Processes can't
It's a matrix... (Score:5, Funny)
SCO, don't try and claim that IBM has your code. That's impossible. Instead, realize the truth. There is no SCO code.
Darl sez... (Score:5, Funny)
There are no American tanks in Baghdad!
They are nowhere near Baghdad.
Their forces committed suicide by the hundreds.... The battle is very fierce and God made us victorious. The fighting continues.
Ooops, wrong script. (fumbles with papers)
IBM is lying about the lack of stolen code.
We need another delay to find stolen code.
There can be no doubt that Linux contains stolen code.
Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (Score:5, Informative)
ESR [catb.org] deserves three cheers for 'scratching his itch', making a tool to compare copyrighted code. To have it actually used in the SCO case which was the annoying impetus for its creation (AFAICT) has to be a nice feeling.
I'm not an ESR fanboy, but I'll give him props when I think he deserves it and in this case I think he does.
--LP
Re:Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (Score:5, Interesting)
see my work used in this comparison. Extremely good.
you can now expect to be subpoena'd... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Thanks Professor Davis... and thanks ESR... (Score:3, Insightful)
He didn't get $550/hr to run comparator, he got the fee for being an expert recognizable as such to the court and damned near irrefutable on the subject. His r
Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)
Re:$550 an hour....and he reviewed 15 lines of cod (Score:5, Insightful)
See you in 10 years!
(trans: read the relevant parts of his CV in the PDF- this guy is FOR REAL.)
Duh! Can't you READ?! (Score:3, Informative)
Check.
Columbia Law Review article on "the Legal protection of Computer Programs". Check.
Software Law journal article on "The Nature of Software and its Consequences for Establishing and Evaluating Similarity. BIG Check.
Court Expert on Software Copyright Infringement. Check.
Retained by the DOJ to investigate copyright theft (and subsequent cover up) by the FBI, NSA, DEA, US
Not So Fast Mr. Davis! (Score:5, Funny)
And now
My name is Darl McBride, and I have authorized this message!
Scope (Score:3, Interesting)
Why? 6 million lines of code compared against 6 million (or more) will take a exponentially more time than 27000 vs 6 million.
SCO code (Score:2, Funny)
Hmmm...I wonder if he can prove that COMPARATOR and SIM do not contain any SCO code?
busted! (Score:5, Funny)
IBM: byte us.
IBM has WMD, claims SCO. (Score:5, Funny)
SCO hasn't played their trump card yet... (Score:3, Funny)
Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Insightful)
I do not fault your analysis; I would like to know more about your methodology, beyond the limited scope of the deposition.
-Hope
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm more interested in the Abstraction and Comparision aspect. Forget the Filtration aspect as they seem only to pertain to non-Copyright (mostly patentable objects).
Now, for Comparision... What are the wiggle room concepts introduced? I know of the most commonly used one such as "Upper-lowercase, multiple whitespaces"
And for the Abstraction, ones I know of are: inverse logic (a gt b) vs. (b lt a) and inverted or flipped loops.
I know in for Abstraction, one can evade the copyright in this manner. But for Comparision....?
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:5, Insightful)
Um. Dr. Davis is the guy who first came up with the abstraction, filtration, comparison test - he was the expert witness in Computer Associates vs. Altai. Check his credentials in the first section.
He actually addresses the point you're asking - the code actually finds looser matches than would be found with abstraction, filtration, comparison. So he just ran them through that, said "well, no matches" - since it's a looser comparison, a stricter comparison would be of no benefit.
I think the court will give him the benefit of the doubt that he knows how to do something that he was the first one to do.
Re:Formal Request to Randall Davis (Score:4, Interesting)
Obligatory stock graph (Score:3, Insightful)
IBM had to do this... (Score:5, Funny)
His resume! (Score:4, Interesting)
"I have also been retained by the Department of Justice in its investigation of the INSLAW matter. In 1992 (and later in 1995) my task in that engagement was to investigate alleged copyright theft and subsequent cover-up by the Federal Bureau of Investigations, the National Security Agency, the Drug Enforcement Agency, the United States Customs Service, and the Defense Intelligence Agency."
Holy rat shit Batman!
Re:His resume! (Score:4, Funny)
So Professor Davis can not only tell us that there is no SCO code in linux, but he should also be able to tell us how much crack the SCO weasels had to smoke before formulating their outrageous claims.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
In related news... (Score:3, Funny)
Wilson was subpoenaed on July 3, 2004 for apparently using SCO Unix bullshit in his underwear. SCO lawyers contended that, in addition to all of their other bullshit, this particular stripe of fecal matter in Wilson's BVDs was, in fact, similar the other bullshit that they have spread around since they began their legal actions.
Wilson, a World War II veteran and resident at the Shady Acres Memory Care facility on the western edge of Alatoosa, was not immediately aware of what SCO was in the first place.
"I thought it was the VA -- finally giving me my money for that piece of Kraut shrapnel I took in 1942! Fucking Krauts! Where's my applesauce? Is my wife around?"
Officials at the memory care facility noted that Wilson is an Alzheimers patient who frequently forgets to wipe himself after using the bedpan, hence the source of the stripe in his underwear. They were aware of the legal action again Wilson by SCO, but rather than stir up his angina and blood pressure by witholding the mail that he watches being delivered every day, they let him open the SCO legal letter himself.
"We're just glad he didn't keel over with a stroke," said Frank Johnson, the head nurse of the memory care facility. "He just ranted about the VA and pissed down his leg while asking for his son, who has been dead for 16 years after a car accident. It could've been a lot worse."
The examination of the fecal stripe in the suspect pair of BVDs turned up concrete evidence that, in fact, the shit was Wilson's. In fact, it was not even bullshit and thus not legally open to subpoena by SCO on the grounds that it was more of SCO's bullshit. No countersuit has been filed, as Wilson's surviving family members have apparently never visited him at the facility and only wish to pay the bills for his care.
IronChefMorimoto
Old news, McBride has already admitted this (Score:4, Interesting)
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1561611,00
Re:Old news, McBride has already admitted this (Score:5, Insightful)
The basic result is that no such lines existed that can be demonstrated to be non-literal copying, or literal copying.
-Rusty
SCO Stalling (Score:3, Funny)
Heh, paragraph 30 (Score:5, Informative)
I think that pretty much sums up this whole case from the beginning.
SCO is like a Smoke & Mirrors show... (Score:3, Funny)
Maybe SCO should get Dan Rathers help. (Score:4, Funny)
SCO MATRIX (Score:4, Funny)
Only try to realize the truth: There is no code.
Then you will see it is not the code that is gone; it is only your head.
Hardly a surprise but there's more (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory Simpson's quote... (Score:3, Funny)
Justice upgrade (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Justice upgrade (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey Darl, had enough yet?!?! (Score:3, Interesting)
Not to mention the fact that you have no case!! Never had one, never will have one!! Do you sleep well at night, Darl? Do your employees welcome you to the office when you show up for work? Or do they jeer at the man whose cost them any future they could ever have had in the IT industry in the hope that they might "get rich quick" by trying to bust up Linux?
Caldera (let's call it what it is...) was one of the Linux leaders and you've turned this once Linux company into a litigation machine just like you're famous for. Well this time, the joke's on you pal. You've come up against two things you didn't count on. One, that a mega corporation like IBM might actually fight you instead of just paying you off and two, the tenacity of the Linux community and our unique ability to find the facts about a given situation. *This* is how it works here, we police each other with the very same eye we've used to scrutinize this farce of yours.
We have come out on top, and we will always come out on top. We've stared you in your ugly face and we've not flinched.
Screw you, Darl McBride.
Sincerely, Gregory Casamento.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Informative)
This has been gone over at length on Groklaw. IBM HAS taken action. No matter what SCO does, IBM still has a huge countersuit under something called Lanham Act [internet.com]. Methinks SCO is in a bit of trouble
question (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:question (Score:5, Informative)
Re:question (Score:5, Interesting)
If Novell did that they would be violating the GPL and infringing on the copyrighted work of Open Sorce programmers.
SCO tried almost the exact same thing (They distribute Linux source (including "stolen" code) under the GPL and then insist that it is illegel to distribute under the GPL and that the GPL is invalid and maybe even un American.
Re:question (Score:5, Informative)
Citing the GPL:
Clear enough?Re:question (Score:3, Interesting)
It looks like they weren't transferred. It is an open question if Novell would be required to make such a transfer (although most people think it unlikely).
Novell could do that. They own they copyright. However, they would have to release the code under the GPL or whatever license is compatible with the GPL and on the files they r
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
The courts have their thorough processes to run through. SCO will get umpteen chances to submit memorandums, emergency memorandums, memorandums in opposition to motions, memorandums in support of motions, motions to support memorandums in support of motions for summary judgement, no wait, theres more...
It's making me ill to watch how easily the process is to abuse. But thank God, unless a MS steps in and ponies up the cash, it will eventually be over.
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Funny)
They're not quite dead yet.
SCO: I don't want to go on the cart!
Oh, don't be such a baby. You're not fooling anyone, you'll be stone dead in a moment.Re:Finally... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Since Dr. Randall Davis is an expert witness for IBM, I am guessing that SCO will say, "ain't so!" and then they will ask for time to refute Randall's findings and perhaps come up with an expert witness of their own that finds thousands of "matches." Hopefully the judge in this case will recognize Randall for the expert that he is and accept his findings. However, that just doesn't seem likely to me. This is just another round in a case that will continue like this ad nauseum.
Erick
SCO has their 'expert' (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Insightful)
Dr. Davis is the person who first elucidated how you compare code (the "abstraction, filtration, comparison" test - Computer Associates vs. Aitai) to see if it violates copyright. SCO will have a hard time trying to argue that its depositions (which are from non-experts, though they claim 'unnamed' experts performed the work) are from people more qualified than Dr. Davis.
So I guess what I'm saying is that SCO will have a hard time finding an expert witness more qualified than Dr. Davis. (Please note that if they try to present a deposition from one, that will likely be stricken - as SCO has been ordered by the court to present such a deposition, and has not - thus indicating it doesn't have one) And I highly doubt that the court will value any other expert over Dr. Davis anyway.
SCO has two of its own employees (Dr. Davis is not an IBM employee, though he is being retained by IBM). IBM has the expert witness who first defined how you compare code. Hmm, I wonder which the judge will believe...
Re:Finally... (Score:5, Interesting)
Whether they still have any patents or copyrights on the functionality of UNIX remains to be seen, and such a case wouldn't necessarily NEED code theft to go forward. Any idiot can see that Linux is a UNIX clone -- the question at that point would be the legality of the cloning process and the layers of licensing that surround it.
Re:Finally... (Score:3, Informative)
Whether they still have any patents or copyrights on the functionality of UNIX remains to be seen,...
Ummm, no it doesn't. We already know that SCO doesn't have any patents, and there's no such thing as a copyright on functionality. We copyright code, not functionality.Re:Finally... (Score:3, Informative)
Yep. You can't copyright ideas, only a particular expression of ideas. In as much as the code -is- the idea, or implements a standard, it can't be copyrighted (e.g. interfaces). Patents cover ideas, not copyright.
Not that SCO hasn't argued exactly the opposite! They've been saying "UNIX concepts and methods" have been infringed as in the press, and even in the courts. It hasn't flown in court at all. The only examples they
a judge will weigh. (Score:5, Informative)
If I recall correctly, Randy told me that he has served as a special master in several cases.
Re: a judge will weigh. (Score:5, Informative)
One would hope, as a matter of fact, the SCOexpert would be required to show where he found matches. That (if it exists) can be explicitly shown to the court.
Then, if need be, the experts can argue over wether or not they match.
Kind of like fingerprints. The suspect's fingerprints are entered as evidence, as are fingerprints found at the scene. The experts can then argue about wether or not they match. But until those fingerprints are presented and accepted as evidence, there is no weighing of testimony to be done.
Re: a judge will weigh. (Score:5, Interesting)
As a matter of fact SCO did show the evidence. This was enumerated in Sandeep Gupta's deposition. The pointed to pdf file has a table of all the files aledged to be copied from Unix sources, and this deposition specifically states he looked at those also (since his automatic detection program failed to find it) and the evidence of copying failed to apply the normal legal standards (also outlined in the deposition). This is very interesting reading indeed.
Re:Finally... (Score:4, Interesting)
That's a final word as far as I'm concerned, and I'd venture so far as to say if IBM wants to make it so it's the final word as far as the law is concerned.
Re:I found this out a while ago... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I found this out a while ago... (Score:3, Funny)
< IBMcode
< IBMcode
< IBMcode
===
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
> SCOliarscode
Either that, or nedit couldn't open such a large file and wound up with a (null) when it tried to malloc the entire SCO code base and IBM code base.
(Over-analysing jokes - it's not just for pendants any more!)
Re:I found this out a while ago... (Score:2)
Maybe it's because I've never used nedit and am missing something?
Re:15 hits (Score:2, Insightful)
All the SCO bullshit over? Far from it. There are still a few hundred million lines of AIX that haven't been compared.
And even if it's over for IBM, doesn't make it necessarily over for Linux in general.
Re:Sounds like.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, didn't Prof Davis also just prove that SCO's source doesn't include Linux code?? If SCO had stolen anything and included it in their code, it would have shown up in the comparator test, wouldn't it?? The comparison just shows common code, it doesn't distinguish which is