I received email from a reader, a developer named David Mohring, who presents the following evidence that SCO employees contributed code to the Linux kernel:
"Developers such as Jun U Nakajima of SCO's Core OS Development team, SCO/Murray Hill, NJ, as well as other SCO and Caldera employees, contributed advice and patches to the Linux kernel, directly and though the Mailing lists of both the Linux-IA64 and the Linux scalability project. Jun U Nakajima was aware of NDA (Non-Disclosure-Agreement) issues, as
this thread to Usenet proves.... Note that in the same thread, Jun admits that he was using stable 4-way SMP systems Linux and has seen a demo 8-way system in the middle of the year 2000:
Today 2.4.0 SMP kernels run on SMP IA-64 platforms (e.g. 4-way) reliably. I'm using such systems for heavy-duty software developement. We had a demo using an 8-way IA-64 machine last Summer. There is quite a bit more to the email.
Many SCO and Caldera employees directly contributed to the development
of enterprise scale Linux, before, during and after Caldera made its
purchase of SCO's Unix division.
Jun U Nakajima, sometime in 2001, went to work for Intel, and even today he is successfully performing the same job he did when he was employed by Old SCO and then Caldera, improving the scalability of Linux on the new Intel processor platforms. In 2002, Jun U Nakajima and Venkatesh Pallipadi, also from Intel, presented a
paper to a USENIX conference. As with all the Linux kernel work, the result of all the above work has been incorporated into the main Linux branch at the discretion of Linus Torvalds.
He has now posted it online and you can read his take on the history of SCO and AIX here.
I'm trying to figure out how to make it possible to post comments here [pj: on RadioUserland at the time], but because following the instructions hasn't worked, I will now have to dig a bit deeper, but that is my goal.
This isn't the first person to bring this issue into the spotlight. I again turn you to this eWeek article,
Did SCO Violate the GPL?
Sue Me? Sue You?
In an article, "Sue Me? Sue You! SCO, Linux & Unix", 18 May 2003, by Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols, the author points to this smoking gun:
But what Caldera did do, as described in a Caldera white paper dated March 8, 2001, with the then new tag-phrase of "Linux and UNIX are coming Together" by Dean R. Zimmerman, a SCO writer, was to try to merge the best features of both operating systems. Early on there's a line that fits perfectly with open source gospel. "For a programmer, access to source code is the greatest gift that can be bestowed." And then, getting straight to the point, Caldera declares: "Caldera has begun the task of uniting the strengths of UNIX technology, which include stability, scalability, security, and performance with the strengths of Linux, which include Internet-readiness, networking, new application support, and new hardware support. Caldera's solution is to unite in the UNIX kernel a Linux Kernel Personality (LKP), and then provide the additional APIs needed for high-end scalability. The result is an application 'deploy on' platform with the performance, scalability, and confidence of UNIX and the industry momentum of Linux." Naturally, I wanted to read this white paper. However, since the article about this white paper was put online, Caldera has removed it, and you can't get it any more. Press releases disappearing, now white papers. What's the deal? Rewrite of history? It used to be here: http://www.caldera.com/images/pdf/volution/linux_unix.pdf.
Isn't this exactly what SCO is accusing IBM of doing? In SCO's
March filing, SCO states, "Prior to IBM's involvement, Linux was the software equivalent of a bicycle. UNIX was the software equivalent of a luxury car. To make Linux of necessary quality for use by enterprise customers, it must be re-designed so that Linux also becomes the software equivalent of a luxury car. This re-design is not technologically feasible or even possible at the enterprise level without (1) a high degree of design coordination, (2) access to expensive and sophisticated design and testing equipment; (3) access to UNIX code, methods and concepts; (4) UNIX architectural experience; and (5) a very significant financial investment."
Isn't this what SCO had said they were doing? I don't see any significant difference. Do you?
Maybe it'd be a good idea if everyone who wishes to were to download for safekeeping whatever they find that interests them, because it may be disappearing fast. That's what I just did after I found the white paper
on another site [PDF].