Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 6 Jun 2003 14:31:27 +0200 | From | Martin List-Petersen <> | Subject | Re: SCO's claims seem empty |
| |
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/
| |