Code SCO claimed "copied into Linux" actually BSD-licensed

[Whoever]

Check out this link:
[url]http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html[/url]

The code shown at the SCO Forum was published in Kernighan & Ritchie's The
C Programming Language, Prentice Hall 1978!

From the web page: Another version of the code is copyrighted by the
University of California as part of the BSD Unix system that they produced
for the U.S. Army and released as Open Source. That code is also under
the BSD license

Also from the web page: "We've found the malloc() function this slide
refers to. It is included in code copyrighed by ATT and twice released
under the BSD license: once by Unix Systems Labs (ATT), and again by
Caldera, the company that now calls itself SCO. Some of the released
versions include the comment in the first slide. The Linux developers have
a legal right to make use of the code under that license. No violation of
SCO's copyright or trade secrets is taking place. "

If they could not find a better example than this, what case do they have?

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can

If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.

>On Tue, 19 Aug 2003 20:55:45 +0000, Whoever wrote:

>> Check out this link:
>> [url]http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html[/url]
>>

[Thomas Humburg]

[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] geruhte am Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 11:02 kund zu tun:

> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can

>
> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of
> what
> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
>

You should look here [url]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/[/url]
for the original article.
And here [url]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.08.03-000/[/url] for a followup
of the article. Be aware these are german articles. The pictures a
journalist of the 'Heise Computer Magazin' took at the SCO Forum are used
as a reference by all other articles which exist on the net.

As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They just
say it doesnt matter, all Unix code (even the one released under a BSD
License or in 2002 released by Caldera in a BSD like license) belong to us.



--
TH
mailto:sherlok@gmx.de
mailto:sherlok@timberbell.de
Registered Linux user #100649 at [url]http://counter.li.org[/url]

[Whoever]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Thomas Humburg wrote:

> [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] geruhte am Mittwoch, 20. August 2003 11:02 kund zu tun:
>

> > Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >>Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can

> >
> > If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of
> > what
> > they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> > and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
> >

> You should look here [url]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-19.08.03-000/[/url]
> for the original article.
> And here [url]http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/jk-20.08.03-000/[/url] for a followup
> of the article. Be aware these are german articles. The pictures a
> journalist of the 'Heise Computer Magazin' took at the SCO Forum are used
> as a reference by all other articles which exist on the net.
>
> As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They just
> say it doesnt matter, all Unix code (even the one released under a BSD
> License or in 2002 released by Caldera in a BSD like license) belong to us.

Ownership is not the issue. No-one has disputed that the SCO Group owns
the code (AFAIK).

What has been shown conclusively is that the code has been licensed
without restriction several times. It's just like the code in most GPL
programs: the original author (or his/her employer) owns the code, they
just license it in a fashion that allows other people to use it.

This is another classic piece of SCO FUD. Unfortunately, too many gullible
reporters are unable to properly analyze SCO's statements and understand
the real implications.

Here's my take on the real situation:

1. There is code that IBM (and not SCO) owns and might, perhaps, be
covered by covered by the ATT/IBM contracts so that IBM should keep the
code a trade secret. The use of this code in the kernel by anyone except
IBM is perfectly legal.

2. There is code that SCO owns in the kernel, but it has been released
under various open source licenses or at other times without any
restriction, so once again, linux users can use this code legally. Once
code has been released under a BSD-style license, the license can't be
revoked. But then, what else can one expect from a company that has
claimed to "revoke" an irrevokable license?

3. There is no SCO-owned, non-open-source code in the kernel. SCO has
presented no compelling evidence to contradict this assertion so far.

SCO keeps talking about "Intellectual Property". This is a term that has
no clear definition in law. The reason SCO uses this term is so that they
can make people think they are talking about copyright when they really
mean trade secrets.

>
>
>
>

[Whoever]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can

>
> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
>

Give it up Tony, SCO is screwed. The mainstream media has started
to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.

Even SCO's spokeman did not claim the photos were fakes. He just made a
lame statement that it was a matter of who could be believed and that SCO
really did own the code (which is probably true, but irrelevent, since the
issue is that is was released under a license that allows it to be used in
the kernel many years ago).

[Mark Rejhon]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote in message news:<Pine.LNX.4.44.0308191348180.656-100000@c941211-a>...

> Check out this link:
> [url]http://www.perens.org/Articles/SCOCopiedCode.html[/url]
>
> The code shown at the SCO Forum was published in Kernighan & Ritchie's The
> C Programming Language, Prentice Hall 1978!

It's even older. The original copyright is AT&T Bell Labs.

1973 version here:
[url]http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/Nsys/sys/nsys/dmr/malloc.c.html[/url]
From 'nsys' kernel.

[url]http://minnie.tuhs.org/UnixTree/V5/usr/sys/ken/malloc.c.html[/url]
From 'V5' kernel.

_____________________________________________

#
/*
* Copyright 1973 Bell Telephone Laboratories Inc
*/

struct map {
char *m_size;
char *m_addr;
};

malloc(mp, size)
struct map *mp;
{
register int a;
register struct map *bp;

for (bp = mp; bp->m_size; bp++) {
if (bp->m_size >= size) {
a = bp->m_addr;
bp->m_addr =+ size;
if ((bp->m_size =- size) == 0)
do {
bp++;
(bp-1)->m_addr = bp->m_addr;
} while ((bp-1)->m_size = bp->m_size);
return(a);
}
}
return(0);
}

[Whoever]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

> >On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>

> >> Harold <har5O-682c264@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >Wow - pretty damning evidence against SCO. I wonder if SCO executives can
> >>
> >> If it's real. Can anyone who attended verify that is a real picture of what
> >> they actually showed? Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays..
> >> and I haven't seen this reported anywhere else.
> >>

>

> >Give it up Tony, SCO is screwed. The mainstream media has started

>
> Give WHAT up?
>
>
> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
have no credibility.

>

> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.

>
> Another post says otherwise.

Where, please show a reference?

> As I said, I have NOT seen this anywhere
> else. If it is real, I would expect that EVERYBODY and their brother
> would be on it like flies on dung.

Just because you cannot find it, does not mean it does not exist. Try
searching google news for SCO. Try this link:
[url]http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/20/sco_undercuts_its_linux_case[/url]

>

> >Even SCO's spokeman did not claim the photos were fakes. He just made a
> >lame statement that it was a matter of who could be believed and that SCO
> >really did own the code (which is probably true, but irrelevent, since the
> >issue is that is was released under a license that allows it to be used in
> >the kernel many years ago).

>
> yadda, yadda yadda. Typical dumb slash-dot nonsense.

I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?

Don't you think it is important to SCO's claim against Linux users that
SCO's predecessors have allowed their copyrighted code to be used
anywhere, including in the Linux kernel?

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>>
>> Give WHAT up?
>>
>>
>> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
>> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

>Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

>What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
>have no credibility.

Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
is any credibility there. The history of Unix code is so damn
twisted and confused that no matter what a court says, there will
be people still passionately convinced that justice was not served.

That's why I get so annoyed with all this blather, 'cause that is
all it is: meaningless noise.

My opinion, btw,. and it is just another dumb opinion, is
that NONE of this stuff should be able to be patented or copy-
righted. It's ALL prior art and it's ridiculous. But that
has nothing to do with anything either.

What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
a result of this and other crapola. Most of that is
completely unrelated to whether SCO is right or wrong, but
you boneheads keep on yapping as though it matters.

>>

>> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.

>>
>> Another post says otherwise.

>Where, please show a reference?

In this thread. That's what "another post" means in this context.

>> As I said, I have NOT seen this anywhere
>> else. If it is real, I would expect that EVERYBODY and their brother
>> would be on it like flies on dung.

>Just because you cannot find it, does not mean it does not exist. Try
>searching google news for SCO. Try this link:
>[url]http://www.boston.com/business/globe/articles/2003/08/20/sco_undercuts_its_linux_case[/url]

OK, thanks. I'm surprised this hasn't had more circulation. Maybe
Microsoft buys too much adverising.

So: if it's real: great. Maybe that will speed this g.d. mess up.
Maybe it won't. I can't honestly say whether that's good or bad:
I suspect it probably doesn't matter at all.

>I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
>copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
>and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
>facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?

It's nonsense. It's unimportant. IT DOESN'T FRICKING MATTER!

There is bigger game afoot, and you idiots aren't paying any
attention. Wake up: un-good things are about to happen. There
will be rumblings about national security, and the incredible
economic damage of viri, and it's going to be twisted and distorted
to make the real culprits here seem like heros.

>Don't you think it is important to SCO's claim against Linux users that
>SCO's predecessors have allowed their copyrighted code to be used
>anywhere, including in the Linux kernel?

No. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's GPL nonsense again. The GPL
itself is under attack - THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Whoever]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

> >>
> >> Give WHAT up?
> >>
> >>
> >> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
> >> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

>

> >Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

>
> Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
> anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

Apparently you do care, since you keep replying!

>

> >What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
> >have no credibility.

>
> Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
> is any credibility there.

The FACTS are that:
1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
violated.
2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
allow use in Linux.

If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

>
> My opinion, btw,. and it is just another dumb opinion, is
> that NONE of this stuff should be able to be patented or copy-
> righted.

I believe that copyrights are very important. Copyrights are vital to the
GPL and so, I believe they are vital to open source.

>
> What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
> a result of this and other crapola.

And what happens to copyrights as a result of SCO's actions is vital to
open source, so you should care.

>

> >>
> >> >to pick it up and no-one has claimed that the photos are fake.
> >>
> >> Another post says otherwise.

>

> >Where, please show a reference?

>
> In this thread. That's what "another post" means in this context.

I can't find a post in this thread that supports your statement. If fact,
the only other comment is:

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003, Thomas Humburg wrote:

>
> As far as I heard, SCO isnt saying that these pictures are a fake. They

just


back to your posting...
On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>

> >I make specific comments, trying to distingush between licening the
> >copyrights and owning the copyrights (note, nothing about the GPL here)
> >and you just dismiss it as nonsense. How about a rational argument on the
> >facts instead of more ad-hominem arguments or groundless dismissals?

>
> It's nonsense. It's unimportant. IT DOESN'T FRICKING MATTER!

>
> No. IT DOESN'T MATTER. That's GPL nonsense again. The GPL
> itself is under attack - THAT IS WHAT IS IMPORTANT.

And that's why it is important to understand the distinctions between
ownership, licensing, trade secrets, etc.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>> >>
>> >> Give WHAT up?
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> I'm sorry to get pissed, but when a person who lacks the guts to even post
>> >> under a real name says something like this, it just fries my butt.

>>

>> >Ad-hominem argument: if you can't argue the facts, attack the person.

>>
>> Ad hominem? There's no fricking hominem there. You are a gutless
>> anonymous poster. Why should I care about what you think?

>Apparently you do care, since you keep replying!

I care about the subject. Because you hide your true identity, I don't
care about you. If you were real, I would have much more respect.

>>

>> >What to give up: your refusal to accept that SCO's claims against Linux
>> >have no credibility.

>>
>> Oh bull-hockey. Nobody, NOBODY has ANY idea whether or not there
>> is any credibility there.

>The FACTS are that:
>1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
>violated.
>2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
>allow use in Linux.

>If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
>what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
>damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

So? It isn't important. You'll see..

>> What's IMPORTANT here is what happens to Open Source as
>> a result of this and other crapola.

>And what happens to copyrights as a result of SCO's actions is vital to
>open source, so you should care.

Right. But that crap is going down whether sCO wins or loses which is
why I do not give a rat's patootie about SCO is right/SCO is wrong
nonsense.

>And that's why it is important to understand the distinctions between
>ownership, licensing, trade secrets, etc.

You just don't get it. You'll see.. but then, because you an anonymous
piece of scum, you'll pretend you knew it all along.. which is
why I have no respect for anything you say.

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Whoever]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>
>

> >The FACTS are that:
> >1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
> >violated.
> >2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
> >allow use in Linux.

>

> >If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
> >what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
> >damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

>
> So? It isn't important. You'll see..

Now you are starting to sound like a shill for SCO.

>
>
> Right. But that crap is going down whether sCO wins or loses which is
> why I do not give a rat's patootie about SCO is right/SCO is wrong
> nonsense.

Obviously the foam around your mouth is interfering with your typing,
since the above does not seem to have any logical thread in it.

>
>

> >And that's why it is important to understand the distinctions between
> >ownership, licensing, trade secrets, etc.

>
> You just don't get it. You'll see..

What will I see, do you know more than has been made public? Are you
a shill for SCO?

> but then, because you an anonymous
> piece of scum,

Ad-hominem

Look at your own postings. You will see that you have consistently refused
to accept publically available data, you have consistently dismissed all
arguments as "nonsense", "unimportant", "slashdot ravings" or similar
terms. You have not put forward a single reason why anyone should believe
SCO, yet, somehow you think that SCO is going to have their intellectual
property upheld in court to the detriment of others.

Where are the facts?

It seems that you only care for your own opinions. Facts are a minor
inconvenience that you seem able (in your own personal world) to ignore.

[brian]

Hi Tony:

You have passively implied that Bruce Perins may have fabricated the story,
"Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays.. and I haven't seen this
reported anywhere else."

'this' has been reported and commented on by a number of significant players
in the IT community.

[url]www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/20/HNscomoreflaws_1.html[/url]

<quote>
Jay Schulist, a senior software engineer with Pleasanton, California's Bivio
Networks says he wrote the 500 lines of code in 1997 as part of a volunteer
project for the Stevens Point Area Catholic Schools in Wisconsin. "I used
it for helping a local school district in my home town to connect their old
Apple Macintosh machines to the Internet," he said.

Schulist wrote the code, based on the publicly available specifications
created by Lawrence Berkeley Labs, he said. He has never seen the AT&T
source code, he added.

The Linux hacker expressed surprised that his contribution would be singled
out by SCO. "I have no idea why they would even chose my code," he said.
"If they had done any research at all, they would have realized that there
was no other way to implement the actual filtering engine."
</quote>

You should review Perens' most recent update:

[url]http://perens.com/Articles/SCO/SCOSlideShow.html[/url]

Here is Bruce Perens' final statement:

(Quotation marks added for claity)
<quote>
SCO's responses to this document are 'We own Unix and would know what it
looks like', and 'It's his word against ours'. I'm not, however, asking you
to rely on my word. I've presented you with links to the evidence, most of
which is available at web sites not under my control. Please examine it and
make your own conclusion.
</quote>

Concerning your pissing and moaning about how the GPL could be hurt, well it
is damaged every time somebody refuses to take a stand - somebody like you.

SCO is clearly perpetrating a fraud on the IT community in order to extort
money it is not entitled to.

If you are an SCO consultant, email them and tell what you think. Contact
their technical department and mention in passing how disappointed you are.
Express your disdain in public forums. Do not sit on your thumb and bemoan
the dissolution of the GPL.

SCO's Unix business model is dead. They either have to truly embrace the new
marketplace and cost their products accordingly or just fade away into
background noise. OpenServer could run out the door if it were made open
source and were priced at $49 a seat - it wouldn't even have to be GPLed,
they could still own and control their IP. Lots of work would have to be
done on bringing it up to current standards but think of the money they
would save by not having to pay huge legal bills.

Rant for Rant.

Brian

[Simon Cooke]

On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:02:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> I wonder if this malloc() function is the same one M$ uses??

You've got Visual Studio... it comes with the CRT source. :)

And the answer is actually no; look at the HeapAlloc functions in the Win32
API. They use completely different specs. (And the CRT uses HeapAlloc).

LPVOID HeapAlloc(
HANDLE hHeap,
DWORD dwFlags,
SIZE_T dwBytes
);

hHeap - allocation heap to allocate data from.

dwFlags values:
HEAP_GENERATE_EXCEPTIONS The system will raise an exception to indicate a
function failure, such as an out-of-memory condition, instead of returning
NULL.
HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE Mutual exclusion will not be used while the HeapAlloc
function is accessing the heap.
This value should not be specified when accessing the process heap. The
system may create additional threads within the application's process, such
as a CTRL+C handler, that simultaneously access the process heap.

HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY The allocated memory will be initialized to zero.
Otherwise, the memory is not initialized to zero.


Simon

[tony@aplawrence.com]

brian <brian@english-bay.com> wrote:

>Hi Tony:

>You have passively implied that Bruce Perins may have fabricated the story,
>"Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays.. and I haven't seen this
>reported anywhere else."

>'this' has been reported and commented on by a number of significant players
>in the IT community.

>[url]www.infoworld.com/article/03/08/20/HNscomoreflaws_1.html[/url]

Thanks. I feel more comfortable about the reality of this now.

>Concerning your pissing and moaning about how the GPL could be hurt, well it
>is damaged every time somebody refuses to take a stand - somebody like you.

Oh bullshit. I've taken a very public stand on this crap, both in
newsgroups and on my website. And I don't hide behind anonymity:
right or wrong, I put my name on my words.

>SCO is clearly perpetrating a fraud on the IT community in order to extort
>money it is not entitled to.

It's starting to look that way, but I have come to the opinion that
this is unimportant. I think bigger threats are looming, and I've
written about it most recently at [url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B397.html[/url]

>SCO's Unix business model is dead. They either have to truly embrace the new
>marketplace and cost their products accordingly or just fade away into
>background noise. OpenServer could run out the door if it were made open
>source and were priced at $49 a seat - it wouldn't even have to be GPLed,
>they could still own and control their IP. Lots of work would have to be
>done on bringing it up to current standards but think of the money they
>would save by not having to pay huge legal bills.

Preaching to the choir here. But you are wrong, they couldn't sell
it for $49.00 because there is too much of other people's stuff
in their. Type "copyrights" at any SCO machine and then translate
each of the many, many lines into outstretched hands looking for
payment.

Of course, if this suit backfires as it could, possibly all those
copyrights could be invalidated if they too could be shown to
be like the stuff referenced here, and then maybe they could.
Wouldn't that be a hoot?

--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

>> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>>
>>

>> >The FACTS are that:
>> >1. SCO showed an example of "copied code", claiming their copyrights were
>> >violated.
>> >2. The code was traced back and shown to have been licensed in ways that
>> >allow use in Linux.

>>

>> >If the above does not show that SCO's credibility is shot, I don't know
>> >what would. Any competant company concerned with credibility would make
>> >damn sure that their "proof" could stand up to inspection.

>>
>> So? It isn't important. You'll see..

>Now you are starting to sound like a shill for SCO.

Idiot.

I am ANYTHING but a shill for SCO.

I'm on record in Usenet and at my website for many years carping
about the utter stupidity of SCO's management. Nor have I
sided with them on this lawsuit, though I have tried to keep
an open mind and have stated again and again that the provenance
of Unix code is very twisted and murky, but if their code
really has been stolen, they deserve to sue. That's an IF,
of course, but anyone who argues differently is just an idiot.

If THIS is the code they are bitching about, then they richly
deserve the scorn and ignominy that will come from it.

[url]http://aplawrence.com/Blog/B399.html[/url] also.


--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Jerry Nash]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 01:33:18 GMT, Simon Cooke <simoncooke@eaSPAMMAGErthNOSPAMlink.net> wrote:

>On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:02:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

>> I wonder if this malloc() function is the same one M$ uses??

>
>You've got Visual Studio... it comes with the CRT source. :)
>
>And the answer is actually no; look at the HeapAlloc functions in the Win32
>API. They use completely different specs. (And the CRT uses HeapAlloc).
>
>LPVOID HeapAlloc(
> HANDLE hHeap,
> DWORD dwFlags,
> SIZE_T dwBytes
>);
>
>hHeap - allocation heap to allocate data from.
>
>dwFlags values:
>HEAP_GENERATE_EXCEPTIONS The system will raise an exception to indicate a
>function failure, such as an out-of-memory condition, instead of returning
>NULL.
>HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE Mutual exclusion will not be used while the HeapAlloc
>function is accessing the heap.
>This value should not be specified when accessing the process heap. The
>system may create additional threads within the application's process, such
>as a CTRL+C handler, that simultaneously access the process heap.
>
>HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY The allocated memory will be initialized to zero.
>Otherwise, the memory is not initialized to zero.
>
>
>Simon

Why don't you show us the code for HeapAlloc()?

[Whoever]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> brian <brian@english-bay.com> wrote:

> >Hi Tony:

>

> >You have passively implied that Bruce Perins may have fabricated the story,
> >"Sorry, but I just don't trust anything nowadays.. and I haven't seen this
> >reported anywhere else."

>
> No, I passively implied that someone might have fabricated Bruce Perens
> making such statements.

And if you looks at the link I pointed to, you would have been able to
tell that it was not a fabrication. Hint: it pointed to "perens.org". A
whois query shows perens.org is owned by Bruce Perens. Simple googling
would confirm this.

But instead, you chose to smear!

You claim to have an open mind, yet you chose to smear without doing the
most trivial checks. That clearly shows bias and a disregard for facts!

Now your latest thread is to say it all does not matter, but some totally
unrelated (but important) issue is the real issue. Well, I agree with you
that the idea of licensing computers to connect to the Internet is
something that is of great concern, but I see no connection between it and
SCO. And no, SCO being a "distraction" does not count!

However, if SCO can somehow destroy GNU/GPL and open source, then
licensing computers to connect will not be an issue -- after all, there
will only be closed source OS-es left.

[tony@aplawrence.com]

Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>When are you going to stop name calling? You seem to object to my

When you put a real name and a real mail address on yout postings.

>anonymity in posting, but, be realistic, it's USENET: I could easily post
>as "Bill Gates <billg@microsoft.com>" or "Darl McBride
><idiotsRus@sco.com>", or I could use some other name that gave you no
>information about myself. You would be none the wiser. Frankly, you would
>be none the wiser if I posted using my real name -- I do not claim any
>fame or notariety.

>How do I know that the posts purporting to be from "Tony Lawrence"
>actually come from the owner of the "aplawrence.com" domain?

Send mail to [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email]. Duh!

>>
>> I'm on record in Usenet and at my website for many years carping
>> about the utter stupidity of SCO's management. Nor have I
>> sided with them on this lawsuit, though I have tried to keep
>> an open mind

>I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. You have claimed many times that
>SCO's IP will be upheld in court.

Now you really deserve being called stupid. What I have said, and
still believe, is that none of this GPL nonsense is going to
invalidate their claims. If they have no actual claim, that's
of course entirely different.

>> and have stated again and again that the provenance
>> of Unix code is very twisted and murky, but if their code
>> really has been stolen, they deserve to sue. That's an IF,
>> of course, but anyone who argues differently is just an idiot.

>Now, you are changing your tune.....

Not by one note. Idiot.

>> If THIS is the code they are bitching about, then they richly
>> deserve the scorn and ignominy that will come from it.

>Ahh.... finally you are starting to let facts about the case sink in. Or
>is this just a trick to try to restore your battered credibility?

Idiot. No differerent than what I have said since day one.


--
[email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] Unix/Linux/Mac OS X resources: [url]http://aplawrence.com[/url]
Get paid for writing about tech: [url]http://aplawrence.com/publish.html[/url]

[Whoever]

On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 [email]tony@aplawrence.com[/email] wrote:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:
>
>

> >I'm sorry, but that is simply not true. You have claimed many times that
> >SCO's IP will be upheld in court.

>
> Now you really deserve being called stupid. What I have said, and
> still believe, is that none of this GPL nonsense is going to
> invalidate their claims. If they have no actual claim, that's
> of course entirely different.

OK, so let's look an actual posting of yours:
[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=bfj4tm%24f8q%241%40pcls4.std.com[/url]

The thread is:

> Whoever <nobody@devnull.none> wrote:

>>And please note, the GPL clearly covers the question of what you must do
>>if you cannot abide by the GPL: you have to stop distributing the GPL'd
>>code.

Your reply to the above:

> And you are convinced that a court is going to agree with you that
> the GPL is valid in that context. As much as I'd like to see that be
> true
> (not because of this lawsuit, but in general), it just may not happen.
> I've said it before: courts favor property rights.

You don't say: "the GPL is irrelevent to the lawsuit", you say
(effectively): "a court will uphold SCO's property rights, irrespective of
the GPL.

Now, let's look at another posting:
[url]http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=Pine.LNX.4.44.0308201459270.4957-100000%40c941211-a[/url]
In this, I ask you to show the posting where someone else expressed doubt
about the analysis of SCO's "stolen" code.

Where's the reply to my question?

Those facts just keep on being inconvenient don't they? You did not reply
to my question, because your assertion that someone else had expressed
doubt in this thread was simply untrue.

Go on, call me an idiot again, or stupid, I don't care! Why not? Because
unless you can get a better grasp of reality, people won't believe you.
People ignore those who resort to throwing insults around instead of
making rational arguments on the basis of facts. Most of all they ignore
the opinions of such people.

OK, I'm going to shut up now! Well, until there is another FACT to
discuss.

[GreyCloud]

Simon Cooke wrote:

>
> On Wed, 20 Aug 2003 18:02:21 -0700, GreyCloud wrote:

> > I wonder if this malloc() function is the same one M$ uses??

>
> You've got Visual Studio... it comes with the CRT source. :)
>
> And the answer is actually no; look at the HeapAlloc functions in the Win32
> API. They use completely different specs. (And the CRT uses HeapAlloc).
>
> LPVOID HeapAlloc(
> HANDLE hHeap,
> DWORD dwFlags,
> SIZE_T dwBytes
> );
>
> hHeap - allocation heap to allocate data from.
>
> dwFlags values:
> HEAP_GENERATE_EXCEPTIONS The system will raise an exception to indicate a
> function failure, such as an out-of-memory condition, instead of returning
> NULL.
> HEAP_NO_SERIALIZE Mutual exclusion will not be used while the HeapAlloc
> function is accessing the heap.
> This value should not be specified when accessing the process heap. The
> system may create additional threads within the application's process, such
> as a CTRL+C handler, that simultaneously access the process heap.
>
> HEAP_ZERO_MEMORY The allocated memory will be initialized to zero.
> Otherwise, the memory is not initialized to zero.
>
> Simon

I looked at the CD... it isn't the same, but it had me
wondering.