Messages in this thread |  | | Date | Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:24:40 +0200 | From | Stefan Smietanowski <> | Subject | Re: SCO's claims seem empty |
| |
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.
// Stefan
- 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/
|  |