Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




Don't you malloc() me...

This, http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/966726/posts , I find amusing.

The idea that SCO, was Novell, was Unix Labs, was ATTL could lay claim to copyrighting malloc()

Perhaps they should go talk to Dennis Ritchie...

Simon Lucy
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Fascinating article on the history Unix, BSD, and Linux... thanks for posting.

anony126
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

This reminds me so much of the Synoptic Problem. 
( http://www.mindspring.com/~scarlson/synopt/ )

Alyosha`
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

At the time that both C and UNIX were created, everyone involved was working for Bell Labs. Since the employer owns the copyright on all work product, this isn't so crazy.  It most certainly doesn't belong to Dennis Ritchie.

That said, only that implementation belongs to Bell Labs.  Separately implemented versions of malloc will belong to their respective creators.

Clay Dowling
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

I wonder what the hell SCO is thinking. Even if their claim is in some way valid, they are alienating the entire nix community with their pressreleases.

So, should they, through divine intervention, survive a legal battle with IBM, there will be noone willing to buy their products.
I mean.. WTF?

Eric Debois
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Eric: SCO has nothing more to lose.  SCO is already well on its way to the scrap heap of history.  By suing IBM they have a wealthy patron in Microsoft, and in the off chance they win ... there's another good chunk of change.

Alyosha`
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

It looks like SCO the company (really Caldera, the 'real' SCO is now called Tarantella) doesn't really have anything to gain. The ones trying to win this, through an inflated stok price, are the insiders.

There has been plenty of selling by SCO corporate insiders since the stock price rise after the lawsuit announcement: http://biz.yahoo.com/t/s/scox.html

RocketJeff
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

By my referring to Dennis Ritchie I wasn't implying he had copyright but rather that he'd have a definitive view as to when the code was first created.

At a guess (without C++ weirdnesses), there'd be two versions of malloc, with sbrk or without.  Oh I spose someone might have melded calloc into malloc as well at some point.

Simon Lucy
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

Ummm as Caldera were the beneficiaries of the Digital Research v Microsoft suit it would be a supreme irony of corporate relations that saw Caldera doing Microsoft's work for them.

SCO is doing it for their own benefit and no one else's, from being the rescuer of bywayed technology (as Caldera) they've turned into ambulance chasers.

Simon Lucy
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

I don't mean to be pedantic (this time), but is that a syntax error on the second line of the second picture?
return)((ulong_t NULL);
Which part did somebody screw up - the copy or the paste?  Or am I misunderstanding - is that not supposed to be verbatim source?

Brian
Tuesday, August 19, 2003

My guess is that they screwed it up when they formatted the text for the presentation (adding all those fancy colors and that devilishly clever Symbol font obfuscation scheme).

Sven G. Ali
Wednesday, August 20, 2003

Yeah, I don't get that font obfuscation scheme.  Was the comment so secret that it needed to be hidden?  And if so, why didn't they just eliminate it from the slide altogether?

Cause I don't know about anyone else, but I can read symbol with only a moderate amount of effort.  And I don't even know Greek.

Alyosha`
Wednesday, August 20, 2003

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home