This page is still under construction
This page is still under construction
As to others who have violated the terms of their Software and Sublicensing Agreements, that information is contained in Exhibits A through C. Specifically, in Exhibit A, it details the line-for-line copying of UNIX System V code that improperly appears in Linux. [...] In Exhibit C, SCO sets forth additional code in Linux in which SCO claims a right. Specifically, Exhibit C shows that Silicon Graphics, Inc. ("SGI") violated its UNIX Software Agreement with SCO by transferring direct lines of UNIX to Linux from its version of UNIX known as "IRIX." IRIX is a derivative work of, and modification based on, System V that contains substantial parts of System V code. In addition to SGI's transfer of direct lines of code from UNIX System V to Linux, as set forth in Exhibit A attached hereto, SGI has improperly transferred the UNIX filing system it developed as part of IRIX to Linux.
45. In only one instance does SCO identify code in Linux to which it claims rights, and the corresponding code in the UNIX software from which the Linux code was allegedly derived. (See Ex. 27 at 59 & Exhibit A.) This Linux code, which comprises about 160 lines of code altogether, was allegedly contributed by SGI (not IBM), and is no longer present in Linux.
also item 185
Code 'revealed' (fsvo) in the SCO Forum 2003 presentation.
The First Amended Complaint (document 25) contains this list: "(a) scalability improvements, (b) performance measurement and improvements, (c) serviceability and error logging improvements, (d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements, (e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support, (f) AIX Journaling File System, (g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components, (h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock manager and other lock management technologies, (i) threading, (j) general systems management functions, and (k) other areas."
The Second and Third Amended Complaints (documents 108 and 323-1) retain this list verbatim. The Final Disclosure and other documents contain allegations about (a) scalability improvements, (b) performance measurement and improvements, (c) serviceability and error logging improvements, (d) NUMA scheduler and other scheduler improvements, (f) AIX Journaling File System, (g) enterprise volume management system to other Linux components, (h) other lock management technologies, and (k) other areas. However, nothing further appears to have been revealed of claims against (e) Linux PPC 32- and 64-bit support, (h) clusters and cluster installation, including distributed lock manager, (i) threading, or (j) general systems management functions.
The complaint in SCO vs Autozone (AZ-1) contains this paragraph:
The Copyrighted Materials include protected expression of code, structure, sequence and/or organization in many categories of UNIX System V functionality, including but not limited to the following: System V static shared libraries; System V dynamic shared libraries; System V inter-process communication mechanisms including semaphores, message queues, and shared memory; enhanced reliable signal processing; System V file system switch interface; virtual file system capabilities; process scheduling classes, including real time support; asynchronous input/output; file system quotas; support for Lightweight Processes (kernel threads); user level threads; and loadable kernel modules.
Details have surfaced elsewhere about IPC, file systems and AIO. Some ELF shared library code is implicated within the Linux A.B.I. project, and ELF loadable kernel module code is implicated within the Linux kernel, so perhaps these claims have been subsumed in the general objection to ELF - which is notably absent from the Autozone complaint, and indeed all four IBM complaints.
Nothing further appears to have been revealed of the other claims.
163 (p. 10) asked about hot swapping in Dynix/ptx, probably related to the MP Agreement's Statement Of Work. Nothing more has been heard about it.
