|
|
| Evidence Caldera Knew in 2002 - or Coulda Shoulda - That JFS in Linux Came From OS/2, not AIX |
 |
|
Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:00 PM EDT
|
Let me sing you a song about frivolous claims. May I? Lookee here [PDF], will you? It's a PDF on Caldera's own web site, a paper titled JFS for Linux, by IBM's Steve Best, dated February 2002, as you can see by the url. It's copyrighted 2002, too. I will assume for the sake of my song that Caldera knew what it was doing, read the paper, and agreed with its facts and wanted the world to read it, presumably since 2002. It's *still* there in 2009. Presumably public companies don't post materials on their websites without at least reading them, so somebody had to know at some point what it said and took affirmative steps to put it there.
It clearly tells the world where JFS for Linux came from -- from IBM's OS/2, not AIX. Caldera, now calling itself the SCO Group, must have forgotten that the paper's there, I'm guessing, or it surely would have been sent to SCO's Heaven for Unhelpful Documents long ago. But can there be a reasonable assertion now that SCO doesn't know, or that it didn't know in 2002, or that it couldn't know before it launched a lawsuit against IBM over this very issue where JFS for Linux comes from? Caldera put that paper on its own website, so *somebody* there knew and approved it. Oops.
And here's precisely what it says:
Source of the JFS technology
IBM introduced its UNIX file system as the Journaled File System (JFS) with the initial release of AIX
Version 3.1. This file system, now called JFS1 on AIX, has been the premier file system for AIX over the
last 10 years and has been installed in millions of customer’s AIX systems. In 1995, work began to
enhance the file system to be more scalable and to support machines that had more than one processor.
Another goal was to have a more portable file system, capable of running on multiple operating systems.
Historically, the JFS1 file system is very closely tied to the memory manager of AIX. This design is
typical of a closed-source operating system, or a file system supporting only one operating system.
The new Journaled File System, on which the Linux port was based, was first shipped in OS/2 Warp Server
for eBusiness in April, 1999, after several years of designing, coding, and testing. It also shipped with
OS/2 Warp Client in October, 2000. In parallel to this effort, some of the JFS development team returned
to the AIX Operating System Development Group in 1997 and started to move this new JFS source base to
the AIX operating system. In May, 2001, a second journaled file system, Enhanced Journaled File System
(JFS2), was made available for AIX 5L. In December of 1999, a snapshot of the original OS/2 JFS source
was taken and work was begun to port JFS to Linux.
I know. This is OMG territory. We already knew Caldera/SCO, knew or shoulda/coulda, that it was distributing JFS in UnitedLinux, as well as in Skunkware. But this is the first evidence that I recall showing that Caldera knew, or shoulda coulda, that JFS in Linux is not from AIX but from OS/2. Yet please notice what Caldera/SCO claimed in its Second Amended Complaint [PDF; text], the operative one, in SCO v. IBM, the litigation it launched in 2003:
The contribution of the Journaling File System ("JFS") was done in a series of "drops" of AIX code identified as "reference files" inside Linux. The first such drop occurred on or about February 2000, with multiple additions and significant follow-up work by IBM since that time to adapt AIX/JFS for enterprise use inside Linux. These drops of reference files do not necessarily become part of the source code in the Linux kernel, but rather are public displays of the Protected Materials so that anyone has access to them and can use them to construct similar file in Linux. The first drop contains (a) a partially functioning port, or transfer, of JFS from AIX to Linux; (b) a set of reference directories (named ref/) which contain the AIX reference version of AIX/JFS; (c) AIX/JFS-related utility files used to maintain and upkeep AIX/JFS; and (d) a set of directories (named directory ref_utils/) which contain the AIX reference version of utilities. Copies of AIX/JFS files into Linux are shown in Table A, below. Table A compares a 1999 version of AIX and shows the following similarities, demonstrating copying of code, structures and/or sequences. [Table A] These transfers of AIX/JFS to Linux are in violation of the IBM Related Agreements, and are an improper use of AIX for adaptation to a general operating system.
Table A
| AIX 9922A_43NIA File |
Line #s |
Linux 2.2.12 ref/File |
Line #s |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
16-37 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
84-95,
126-138 |
| kernel/sys/vnode.h |
109-133 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
96-122 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
39-40 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
189-90 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
161-166 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
414-421 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
172-180 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
37-48 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
199-205 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
52-59 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
62-66 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
286-290 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
72-76 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
295-302 |
| usr/include/jsf/inode.h |
83-158 |
include/linux/jfs/ref/jfs_inode.h |
322-411 |
And SCO claimed during the lengthy discovery battles that it needed discovery, more AIX code, which it eventually got, in order to prove its allegations about AIX and JFS. Remember this sentence? -- "SCO has spent countless hours, and sometimes fruitless effort, trying to track the improper use of UNIX System V code in Linux through AIX and Dynix." Fruitless. Fruitless because it wasn't true? You think? And the remarkable thing is, it seems all it needed to do is look on its own web site to find that paper, which would have been considerably cheaper for both SCO and IBM. Steve Best, in a 2001 interview we linked to years ago in 2004, said the same thing: The JFS for Linux is a port from OS/2 and has an OS/2 compatibility option. The OS/2 source was also used for the JFS2 just release on AIX 5L. There is a JFS1 on AIX and we didn't use this source base, since the OS/2 source base was a new "ground-up" scalable design started in 1995. Yet SCO in its Memorandum in Opposition to IBM's Motion for Summary Judgment on Its Tenth Counterclaim for Declaratory Judgment of Non-Infringement [PDF] (from 2004 but not yet decided because the case is stayed by the SCO bankruptcy) claimed:
Another example of the results of SCO’s comparison of source code is the copying of the journaled file system (JFS) module in IBM’s successive later versions of AIX in Linux version 2.6. Id. IBM has not produced the early versions of AIX, so that SCO cannot (yet) establish how the JFS in Linux version 2.6 derives from the JFS in UNIX.
And SCO will never establish it, I'm thinking, if it didn't happen that way, and according to the paper on their own website, it didn't happen that way. Of course, IBM's position is that it can do what it pleases with its own homegrown code, even if it were a derivative. But JFS isn't even that, according to the PDF Caldera itself placed on its web site. And in any case, one of IBM's experts, Dr. Randall Davis, said in his 2nd Declaration that he looked at all the code, and he couldn't find anything that was copied or even similar: Despite an extensive review, I could find no source code in any of the IBM Code that incorporates any portion of the source code contained in the Unix System V Code or is in any other manner similar to such source code. Accordingly, the IBM Code cannot be said, in my opinion, to be a modification or a derivative work based on Unix System V Code. I thought I'd repeat that now, since it's been a while, and someone just published what I'd call a FUD article claiming that there was some commingling of code. All signs, however, point to no, as I read them, at least not the way SCO tells it. And certainly, given the above, the burden would be on someone claiming there was to be specific with some evidence of such a claim. From the evidence I've seen, I'd say it's exactly the opposite, that SCO copied IBM code improperly. IBM has a copyright on JFS code in Linux, if you recall. That's why it is counterclaiming (its 8th Counterclaim) against SCO for copyright infringement and asking for treble damages:
43. SCO has literally copied and distributed IBM's copyrighted "Linux Kernel Support for JFS" source code, both in the SCO Linux Server 4.0 software product that it sold to customers and in the Linux files that SCO made available for download on its Internet website.
44. Specifically, 4,302 lines of IBM's source code, including IBM copyright notices, appear verbatim and are identical to code in SCO's products, as indicated in the table attached as Addendum H. A copy of the relevant Linux files from SCO Linux Server 4.0 is attached as Exhibit 12.2 to the Sorenson Declaration. A copy of the relevant Linux files available on SCO's Internet website is attached as Exhibit 12.3 to the Sorenson Declaration.
This PDF about JFS is *still* there. I want to thank the reader who sent it to me, and if you'd prefer to read it as HTML, just copy the url of the PDF and search on Google for that url, and you'll find it, turned into HTML by Google. Oh, no! What have I done? Now some Elderly Copyright Neanderthal with a dying business plan will dream up a plan to sue Google for that. But in the meantime, it's a wonderful service.
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:24 PM EDT |
So that PJ can find them (not that she ever makes mistakes! :-P)
Please use "misteak => mistake" as your title.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:26 PM EDT |
RE: the FUD article - well, that is nothing compared to the FUD comments that
follow it... if you like fiction, then those comments following that article
are full of it.
The ones defending PJ are in part correct... yet, don't go back to the old days
when PJ's interest had nothing to do with this SCO thing... as Groklaw started
out following a totally different legal situation.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:28 PM EDT |
So that the main thread will not be cluttered.
Remember to use those linkies!
On-topic posters will be punished by having to explain how SCOX could claim that
JFS2 came from AIX, when their own website explains it's OS/2 derived.
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: red floyd on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:30 PM EDT |
Please use the title of the newspick as your title, so we can all know what you
are discussing!
---
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a *CITIZEN* of the United
States of America.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Steve Martin on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 05:57 PM EDT |
I happened to do some snooping in the metadata (specifically, "View", "Show
Comments List"), and found where one "Dean Zimmerman", on April 3 2008,
highlighted the section quoted by PJ above.
A quick Google search reveals
a Dean R. Zimmerman, "a SCO writer" (according to this May 2003 article) and listed on TSG's web site as "Brand
Manager, SMB and Branch Automation Solutions". It's likely that this is the same
"Dean Zimmerman" who modified this document to highlight the cited passage. If
it is in fact the same one, this proves that the retention of this document on
TSG's servers is not an oversight, rather that TSG knew that this document was
still there.
But why would someone at TSG highlight that portion of this
document after all this time? Perhaps gearing back up to FUD their way through
the IBM litigation?
---
"When I say something, I put my name next to
it." -- Isaac Jaffe, "Sports Night" [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: wharris on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 07:10 PM EDT |
Speaking as a non-lawyer, the most frustrating thing about
the entire saga is that Linux users knew years ago that
SCO had no evidence and was lying in court.
And yet, McBride has continued to receive his CEO salary
(and some healthy bonuses). IBM has had to spend many
millions defending themselves against garbage. And neither
SCO nor its lawyers are being punished for repeatedly
lying in court documents. (They lost the case because they
had no evidence, and are bankrupt because they were
stupid. Neither of these is a punishment for lying in
court).
What the SCO saga has demonstrated is that a dying company
can eke out several more years of existence if it is
willing to make a kamikazee attack against the enemy of
someone willing to secretly fund them.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: digger53 on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 07:29 PM EDT |
So does this conduct amount to perjury, or is it just garden variety legal
"ethics"? It seems extremely dishonest to me and I can't see why this kind of
deliberate misconduct should not be illegal and punishable ... jail terms for
SCO's principles, and disbarment for the SCO lawyers/legal teams. Guess that's
why I'm not a lawyer "earning" the big bucks. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: sk43 on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 07:45 PM EDT |
<<Caldera, now calling itself the SCO Group, must have forgotten that the
paper's there, I'm guessing, or it surely would have been sent to SCO's Heaven
for Unhelpful Documents long ago.>>
Not at all - in fact, just the opposite. It was added to SCO's website about a
year ago. [Check the Document Properties - modified Thu 03 Apr 2008. That is
the date I discovered it on SCO's website.]
It is linked from SCO's Legal Update page:
http://www.sco.com/company/legal/update/. Many of the documents linked from
here were used as exhibits to its various motions, memoranda, and Oppositions
back in 2007.
In order to see how it supports SCO's position, however, you need to quote from
it appropriately. Here is SCO's quote from the document as listed on the Legal
Update page:
"The UNIX Journaled File System 'now called JFS1 on AIX has all the premier
file system for AIX over the last 10 years...' is '... the new Journaled File
System... on which the Linux port was based.'"
See? If you delete enough text, mush two paragraphs together, and don't worry
that what you end up with isn't even a sentence, then you can prove conclusively
that JFS in Linux came from AIX.
I do not know if SCO used this document or tried quoting the way it did in any
of its Court filings.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: JamesK on Tuesday, April 07 2009 @ 09:56 PM EDT |
Between this article and the recent one about LKP, it's obvious that SCOX had to
know from the outset that their case was fraudulent. When do we get to see some
punishment dished out for this? Is this something that the officers can be held
personally liable for? Given some of the testimony given, I'd say there's a
pretty strong case for perjury.
---
This LAN is your LAN, this LAN is my LAN...
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 07:12 AM EDT |
I don't know whether this is what thenewSCOgroup argues or not (I really could
not care less) but here what I think they could have argued:
1) JFS1 has been written for AIX
2) JFS2 has been written for OS/2 underline{thinking about JFS1 for AIX}
3) JFS2 has been ported to AIX
4) JFS2 has been ported to Linux (thenewSCOgroup tongue in cheek: obviously
copied from the AIX version, not OS/2)
THEREFORE) JFS2 in Linux is derived from System V.
Seriously: I think they might have thought to argue that the Linux version is a
derivative of the AIX version of JFS2. (Do not try to argue that IBM had the
right to do it: I know it, I'm convinced about it). Since "everything that
comes near some SysV code is thenewSCOgroup's code forever", IBM lost
forever the right to publish its code in Linux.
I've honestly not looked whether JFS2 code in Linux came DIRECTLY from OS/2 or
though AIX (I expect the former, but it may be the latter); I think whatever
legal theory thenewSCOgroup might think of is wrong BUT, what they might argue
is:
JFS2 went this way:
OS/2 --> AIX --> Linux
THEREFORE IBM has to keep it seekreet.
Loïc[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: ka1axy on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 07:50 AM EDT |
I have always thought tSCOg's claims that IBM stole their precious
"IP" and donated it to Linux were laughable.
I mean, this is *IBM* we're talking about, here. The company is almost
synonymous with the term "computer". OS/360? James Brooks' _The
Mythical Man-month_? IBM has probably forgotten more about operating systems and
file systems than tSCOg ever knew.
That this paper has surfaced is not surprising in the least. UNIX is a
wonderful operating system, not because of any particularly clever technical
work (although there is plenty of that), but because it was the first
"open" operating system. Its openness and consequent portability are
what make it great. Remember that there was already a good deal of open source
software (for UNIX systems) on FTP sites when Linux development started in the
early 90s.
Regards,
Peter
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 08:16 AM EDT |
Quote: "...SCO's Heaven for Unhelpful Documents..."
<snicker>
Pure poetry.
I forgot my user name and password so long ago it isn't even funny.
- RDH[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jsusanka on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 11:28 AM EDT |
you really can't make this stuff up any better.
this is just plain hilarious.
---
# Adware
http://jsusanka.bezoogle.com/pp/adware/
# Anti-Spyware
http://jsusanka.bezoogle.com/pp/anti-spyware/[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tiger99 on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 01:47 PM EDT |
| Yes, not the best ever piece of journalism. But some parts of the article may
make sense. For example, IBM would have need to ensure continued availability of
stuff like Java, and even MySQL. It is not good business to be relying too much
on a competitor. But far more than that, there is a strong suggestion that the
acquisition, which now appears to be dead, may have been intended to facilitate
competition with Oracle. That makes very good sense too. Oracle have a near
monopoly on certain parts of the high end database market, and like all
businesses, IBM would like their share. But I wonder if there is some other
similar, or even bigger, plan at work? What I am sure of is that it is, or was,
an attempt to grow business in several market segments. That is what businesses
do, when conditions permit. Unix, and in particular the almost in Chapter 7 SCO,
no longer has the slightest relevance to the greater plans of either IBM or Sun.
They are merely an irritant, still accounting for some legal expenditure. Now
this may be mere suspicion, but would a combined IBM and Sun facilitate bringing
about the demise of a well-known Monopoly? By the way, why has the CTO of the
chip design department of Sun just left, to work for that very Monopoly? And why do they
want a hardware guy? Can't make much sense of all this yet, but I am sure it
will become obvious eventually. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: LaurenceTux on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 04:19 PM EDT |
http://www.webcitation.org/
basically you can use a bookmarklet and they will grab a copy of a page and give
you a bookmark to a date/timestamped copy
for an example http://www.webcitation.org/5ftBWk92t is the short form for the
copy of the pdf in question[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: jto on Wednesday, April 08 2009 @ 06:37 PM EDT |
Just to note that Steven Best still works at IBM, currently in Notes on Linux
development. If anyone needs to verify the original version (2/27/2002
9:45:49 AM) versus the version on the "Caldera" web site (4/3/2008 12:48:15 PM)
it can be done! ---
Regards, Jim Elliott [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, April 09 2009 @ 01:37 AM EDT |
It would be a good idea to slow down and consider matters very carefully.
JFS started in AIX, then a more OS-independent JFS2 was developed and first
released for OS/2, and then JFS2 was released for AIX. That much it seems all
parties agree on.
Steve Best claims that JFS2 is a new rewrite, but doesn't address specifically
whether it contains any code from JFS1.
The way to determine whether JFS2 includes code from JFS1 is to do a
line-by-line comparison of the two. This is not something that any Groklaw
participants have done, except for one: me.
Since the Linux community, or at least that segment of it represented by Groklaw
readers, wants to believe that IBM (here represented by Steve Best) is truthful
and SCO is untruthful, naturally they make the assumption that if Steve Best
said it, it must be true.
What's the justification for this assumption?
Wouldn't the simplest thing be for IBM to publicly post the code for JFS1 and
JFS2 so that interested programmers can do the comparison for themselves?
As I said, I know the answer, but, regretfully, am not free to disclose it.
--Marc Rochkind
SCO Expert Witness
rochkind@basepath.com
(Posted anonymously because PJ removed my Groklaw login.)[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
