If you check the file in GZip from 1999 (1.2.4a) it is not licensed with GPL:
inflate.c -- Not copyrighted 1992 by Mark Adler
version c10p1, 10 January 1993
You can do whatever you like with this source file, though I would
prefer that if you modify it and redistribute it that you include
comments to that effect with your name and the date. Thank you.
[The history has been moved to the file ChangeLog.]
Does that file contain GPLed changes from the gzip project? I know linux's copy is effectively GPL2 because of that. Wouldn't be surprised if gzip's is the same.
It's sort of how bringing BSD code into a GPL project is a bit of a one way street.
One result is that the allegation got investigated here: HN isn't just regurgitating the news, its readers are making news. Sometimes, misinformation is the result of an honest confusion. Better to discuss it out in the open, than cover it up.
The other result is that it's a teaching moment for people who have incomplete understanding of related licensing issues.
As someone who has written userland implementations of several crypto algorithms in the past (parts of PKCS5: PBKDF2 and PBES2), I’m positive you could say this about my code as well.
If you were both following the same spec, they should be very similar. Intentionally renaming things would just make it more confusing for the next guy and more difficult for anyone to validate your code.
EDIT: and of course that’s not to say they didn’t “steal” it, just saying that similarity in this kind of code is to be highly expected.
My first assignment as a developer was porting some common formats to Java, mostly PNG and MD5 (weird combo I know, but there were reasons).
I spent a week banging my head against the FFI for Java to get MD5 C code wrapped, and then in a fit of pique tried to do an all-Java implementation.
Since Java is a C-family language, transcribing the code from the specification was a cakewalk, and I had something working within a day.
Because of the PNG work (and a fascination with compression) I've also spent some time in the zlib code, and the zlib code is... unusual. Among other things, it has longjmp support built in so you can do cooperative multitasking in single-threaded systems. That and some aggressive work to assert that there is sufficient free memory to run zlib properly, makes the code a bit more novel. I don't think you or I would write the code that way, so it's implausible that someone would accidentally replicate the code, in this scenario or any other.
Variable names and code comments are character-for-character identical. Highly unlikely for two programmers in different industries in different countries who speak different languages.
[+] [-] jbarberu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] monocasa|5 years ago|reply
It's sort of how bringing BSD code into a GPL project is a bit of a one way street.
[+] [-] unknown|5 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] est31|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] masklinn|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] FartyMcFarter|5 years ago|reply
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zlib_License
[+] [-] clankyclanker|5 years ago|reply
Man, if copyright wasn’t 85 years long, Nintendo might already be off the hook.
[+] [-] saagarjha|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] russdill|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bonyt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] AdmiralAsshat|5 years ago|reply
Also, damn, Nintendo was still releasing N64 games in 2001? The release date would've been mere months before the Gamecube launch and Luigi's Mansion.
[+] [-] meddlepal|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kevinmchugh|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Ashanmaril|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gowld|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] klyrs|5 years ago|reply
One result is that the allegation got investigated here: HN isn't just regurgitating the news, its readers are making news. Sometimes, misinformation is the result of an honest confusion. Better to discuss it out in the open, than cover it up.
The other result is that it's a teaching moment for people who have incomplete understanding of related licensing issues.
[+] [-] chrismeller|5 years ago|reply
If you were both following the same spec, they should be very similar. Intentionally renaming things would just make it more confusing for the next guy and more difficult for anyone to validate your code.
EDIT: and of course that’s not to say they didn’t “steal” it, just saying that similarity in this kind of code is to be highly expected.
[+] [-] hinkley|5 years ago|reply
I spent a week banging my head against the FFI for Java to get MD5 C code wrapped, and then in a fit of pique tried to do an all-Java implementation.
Since Java is a C-family language, transcribing the code from the specification was a cakewalk, and I had something working within a day.
Because of the PNG work (and a fascination with compression) I've also spent some time in the zlib code, and the zlib code is... unusual. Among other things, it has longjmp support built in so you can do cooperative multitasking in single-threaded systems. That and some aggressive work to assert that there is sufficient free memory to run zlib properly, makes the code a bit more novel. I don't think you or I would write the code that way, so it's implausible that someone would accidentally replicate the code, in this scenario or any other.
[+] [-] Jaruzel|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] legulere|5 years ago|reply
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/20762094/how-are-zlib-gz...
[+] [-] shadowgovt|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jhfdbkofdcho|5 years ago|reply
https://www.retroreversing.com/gigaleak2
[+] [-] Ashanmaril|5 years ago|reply
It's how they found an old unused Luigi model for Mario 64!
[+] [-] relativitypro|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] edu|5 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dharmab|5 years ago|reply