Messages in this thread | | | Date | Thu, 12 Jun 2003 12:20:35 +0200 | From | Martin List-Petersen <> | Subject | Re: SCO's claims seem empty |
| |
Citat Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>:
> On Gwe, 2003-06-06 at 13:31, Martin List-Petersen wrote > > 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 > > If it isn't simply carefully doctored choices designed mislead clueless > analysts. You are also ignoring at least two other things - code that is > common because its from the reference (eg intel locking code) and code > from third party vendors legitimately supplied to both Linux and SCO.
This article states, that they might violate the GPL:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,3959,1123199,00.asp
Regards, Martin List-Petersen martin at list-petersen dot dk -- Q: What do you call the scratches that you get when a female sheep bites you? A: Ewe nicks.
- 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/
| |