[lkml]   [2003]   [Aug]   [21]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: SCO's "proof"
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:09:27 +1000
Stuart Longland <> wrote:

> This case is getting more rediculous with each day...lfmao
> Oh dear, it seems that our /comments/ are alike. Hrmm. Pity the
> compiller doesn't take any notice of them, and therefore, I don't see
> the evidence that the /code/ has been stolen. Also, as others have
> quite rightfully pointed out, it doesn't even compile -- syntax errors
> galore.
> Lets hope some people in the legal profession have some C knowledge --
> or at least have the sense to go directly to the kernel source on
> rather than relying on what SCO provides.

As the only case that SCO has filed up to now is against IBM (as far as I know)
you should be aware of the possibility that this proof presented is only a
piece of FUD to distract from the real issues. IBM has never touched this
source, so it is irrelevant to the case.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2005-03-22 13:47    [W:0.066 / U:4.172 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site