Re: SCO's claims seem empty

Martin List-Petersen (martin@list-petersen.dk)
Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:31:27 +0200


Citat Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>:

> uaca@alumni.uv.es wrote:
> > Hello everybody
> >
> >
> > let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
> >
> > they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously
> on
> > SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license),
> >
> > how to refute that?
>
> Take the subsystem which they show code that "look! They stole it from
> us!" and look at how it has developed over time, including this very
> mailing list discussions. I mean. Noone pushed in any subsystem into
> the kernel (except linus) and just let it sit there, most were
> gradually merged, so should have historical baggage.
>
> "Look here in 2.0, here we did like this and then during 2.1 it was
> changed and in 2.2 it was rewritten to this gradually in these
> kernels and in 2.3 we redid it slowly over all of these versions ..."
>
> How can they refute it? The linux kernel and all the historical versions
> are available on the net including at least some of the discussions
> behind their incorporation. The other part would in part be discussed
> over the IRC, I know.
>

I agree.

Besides this article states confirmation on similar code, still i would say: Did
it come from Linux orginally or did it come from SCO ?

http://informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=10300314

Regards,
Martin List-Petersen
martin at list-petersen dot dk

--
Today is what happened to yesterday.

- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/