Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code

The title is a reference to samizdat, a form of private circulation of suppressed literature within Soviet-bloc countries,{{cite news|last1=Borchers|first1=Detlef|title=Von Null auf Linux in 6 Monaten? Nur durch kopierten Code.|url=http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/Von-Null-auf-Linux-in-6-Monaten-Nur-durch-kopierten-Code-98883.html |trans-title=From nothing to Linux in six months? Only through copied code|accessdate=27 December 2014|work=Heise Online|date=20 May 2004 |language=German}} and by extension slang for papers that contain programming techniques and code, sometimes from sources that have not authorized publication, which are often passed from programmer to programmer. Samizdat claims that Linus Torvalds used source code taken from Minix, a small Unix-like operating system used in teaching computer science, to create Linux 0.01, on the theory that no mere student could write an entire Unix-like kernel single-handedly.

The book also recommends that government-funded programming should never be licensed under the GPL, but under the BSD license or similar simple permissive licenses. It states that the US government should:

• "Work vigorously to create a true 'free source' code capability program at universities and colleges. This program should go to promote true open source projects, not hybrid source projects like the GPL and Linus {{sic}}. The federal government should support a $5 billion budget over ten years to produce a free source code project in partnership with the IT industry and other governments interested in promoting increased computers {{sic}} science research and development. This effort would be a benefit to academia, the private sector, and the IT economy."
• "Actively study the taxpayer return on investment (TORI0) {{sic}} from government funded governmental research and development at colleges and universities."
• "Increase the US Patent and Trademark Office budget to properly support the anticipated growth in intellectual property filings by the public as a result of the 'open source' program at colleges and universities."
• "Increase financial incentives for corporations to participate in an open source program at colleges and universities."

The book's claims, methodology and references have been seriously questioned, including by many of those it quotes in support of its thesis, such as Andrew S. Tanenbaum, author of Minix; Dennis Ritchie, one of the creators of Unix;{{cite web|title=Dennis Ritchie's Interview for Samizdat|url=http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040601212559558|publisher=Groklaw|accessdate=1 January 2015|date=1 June 2004}} and Richard Stallman, leader of the GNU project. Others have said that quotes attributed as being from an "interview with AdTI" were in fact from prerelease journal papers (Ilkka Tuomi) or from messageboard posts (Charles Mills, Henry Jones).

Alexey Toptygin said he had been commissioned by Brown to find similarities between Minix and Linux 0.01 source code, and found no support for the theory that Minix source code had been used to create Linux;{{Cite web |date=2023-03-15 |title=Source comparison of early linux and minix versions. |url=https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/codecomparison/alexey.html |access-date=2024-08-13 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230315172943/https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/codecomparison/alexey.html |archive-date=2023-03-15 }} this study is not mentioned in the book. Toptygin has been quoted as saying that he had been asked by a friend

... if I wanted to do some code analysis on a consultancy basis for his boss, Kenneth Brown. I ended up doing about 10 hours of work, comparing early versions of Linux and Minix, looking for copied code. To summarize, my analysis found no evidence whatsoever that any code was copied. When I called him to ask if he had any questions about the analysis methods or results, and to ask if he would like to have it repeated with other source comparison tools, I was in for a bit of a shock. Apparently, Ken was expecting me to find gobs of copied source code. He spent most of the conversation trying to convince me that I must have made a mistake, since it was clearly impossible for one person to write an OS and 'code theft' had to have occurred.{{cite web |url=http://www.itpro.co.uk/199785/litigating-against-innovation-legal-attacks-on-linux/2 |title=The real fathers of Linux? |publisher=www.itpro.co.uk |accessdate=2008-06-13 |last=IT Pro}}

Although Linux 0.01 was written using Minix as an example and starting point – Minix had been created by Tanenbaum as an example for study – no code from Minix was actually used in it; Tanenbaum himself agrees on this point, and stated as much in an interview with Ken Brown while the latter was researching Samizdat.{{cite web |url=http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ |title=Some Notes on the "Who wrote Linux" Kerfuffle, Release 1.5 |first=Andy |last=Tanenbaum |authorlink=Andrew S. Tanenbaum |date=May 20, 2004 |archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20100918163440/http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ |archivedate=September 18, 2010 |accessdate=December 13, 2015 |quote=I said that to the best of my knowledge, Linus wrote the whole kernel himself, but after it was released, other people began improving the kernel, which was very primitive initially, and adding new software to the system--essentially the same development model as MINIX. ... By the time Linus started, five people or small teams had independently implemented the UNIX kernel or something approximating it, namely, Thompson, Coherent, Holt, Comer, and me. All of this was perfectly legal and nobody stole anything. Given this history, it is pretty hard to make a case that one person can't implement a system of the complexity of Linux, whose original size was about the same as V1.0 of MINIX. |url-status=dead }} Furthermore, Linux 0.01 was a barely functional first draft, far from the sophisticated, industry-grade Linux-based operating systems it would later grow into.

Samizdat's detractors also point to the fact that AdTI has been funded directly since 1999 by Microsoft,{{cite journal|last1=Tuomi|first1=Ilkka|title=Evolution of the Linux Credits file: Methodological challenges and reference data for Open Source research|url=http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/tuomi/index.html|journal=First Monday|date=June 2004|volume=9|issue=6|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20040612161429/http://www.firstmonday.org/issues/issue9_6/tuomi/index.html#t6|archivedate=2004-06-12}} a company which publishes the competing proprietary operating system Microsoft Windows, and considered Linux one of its most important competitors at the time (see {{format link|Halloween documents#Documents I and II}}).

After a month of widespread rejection of the book in the technical press, Microsoft also repudiated it in mid-June, a spokesman calling it "an unhelpful distraction from what matters most—providing the best technology for our customers".{{cite news|last1=Gomes|first1=Lee|title=To Judge Recent Attack on Linux's Origins, Consider the Source|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB108716630384735852?mobile=y|accessdate=2 January 2015|work=Wall Street Journal|date=14 June 2004}}

Notably absent from Brown's research for Samizdat was any direct communication with Torvalds.{{cite web|last1=Tanenbaum|first1=Andrew S.|title=Rebuttal to Ken Brown|url=http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/rebuttal/|accessdate=13 December 2015|date=6 June 2004|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20240121061820/https://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/rebuttal/|archivedate=21 January 2024|quote=BEFORE stating that Brown did not talk to Linus, I asked Linus if Brown had interviewed him. Here is an excerpt from his e-mail to me: AST: Did Brown come visit you? Linus: Nope. I can't even find any emails in my archives, so unless he used some other name or it got marked as spam and deleted, he never even tried to approach me.}}

• Halloween documents

{{reflist}}

• [https://web.archive.org/web/20100119163102/https://www.angelfire.com/linux/toussaint/samizdat/samizdat.pdf Samizdat: And Other Issues Regarding the 'Source' of Open Source Code] (The prerelease e-book) (PDF, 468KiB)
• [http://webarchive.loc.gov/all/20081127072301/http%3A//www%2Eadti%2Enet/samizdat/brown%2Ereply%2Ejune%2E04%2Ehtml Samizdat's critics ... Brown replies] (Ken Brown, 4 June 2004)
• [http://www.juliao.org/pub/adti-comments.pdf Criticism of the 2004 "Origins of Linux" report] (PDF) (Julião Duartenn, Security Skill Center, Oblog Software SA)
• [http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ Some notes on the "Who wrote Linux" Kerfuffle] (Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 20 May 2004)
• [http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/codecomparison/alexey.html Source comparison of early linux and minix versions]
• [http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/followup/ Ken Brown's Motivation] (Andrew S. Tanenbaum, 21 May 2004)
• [https://web.archive.org/web/20060909204056/http://www1.commsworld.com.au/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=commsworld%2Fhome&var_el=art&art_id=1084814488546&var_sect=COMMENT&from=home Reputation of the Dead] (CommsWorld AU, 21 May 2004)
• [http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34069.html Accusatory Report Deliberately Confuses] (Interview with Richard Stallman, LinuxInsider, 30 May 2004)
• [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040524011702501 Samizdat — a Noble Word with a Touching History] (Groklaw, 30 May 2004)
• [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040604212501531 Ken Brown Takes Off the Mask; and a Gilbert & Sullivan Parody] (Groklaw, 4 June 2004)
• [http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2004/6/5/7424/26396 Critique of Ken Brown's response] (Ta bù shì dà yú, Kuro5hin.org, 6 June 2004)
• [http://linuxtoday.com/infrastructure/2004061602626OPCYLL Editor's Note: AdTI Fires Cheap Shot at ... Us] (Brian Proffitt, Linux Today, 16 June 2004)
• [http://www.linuxinsider.com/story/34529.html ADTI: Open-Sourcers Skirt Copyrights] (Lisa Stapleton, LinuxInsider, 16 June 2004)

• [http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040611141310910 Two More — Swartz and Perens — Rebut Alexis de Tocqueville's Brown] (Groklaw, 12 June 2004)

{{Linux}}

Category:Books about Linux

Category:Books about free software

Category:Hoaxes