Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 21 Aug 2003 12:22:59 +0200 | From | Stephan von Krawczynski <> | Subject | Re: SCO's "proof" |
| |
On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 13:09:27 +1000 Stuart Longland <stuartl@longlandclan.hopto.org> 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 > kernel.org 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.
Regards, Stephan - 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/
| |