decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


To read comments to this article, go here
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 customerís 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 SCOís comparison of source code is the copying of the journaled file system (JFS) module in IBMís 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.


  View Printable Version


Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )