paul at freebsd-services.com
Tue Jun 24 13:45:21 BST 2003
On Tue, Jun 24, 2003 at 01:05:29PM +0100, Sam Pikesley wrote:
> But it's still FUD, as exposed here:
Well, I've got some disagreements with what Greg's said but I'm
discussing that with him privately.
> I get the impression that SCO thought that IBM would
> just pay up to make them go away. And when IBM said
> 'Get stuffed', SCO started lashing out at anything
> that looks remotely like UNIX.
No, I think they're genuinally trying to sue for breach of contract.
Whether they're successfull depends on how the court case pans out.
Note that if they win against IBM then may have a case to claim
that Linux is tainted with code that they are owed royalties on.
> Either that, or one of their 'expert lawyers' has seen
> for (i = 0; i < 10; i++)
> in both the Linux source and the SCO source and
> concluded that they've been robbed...
The Linux Journal article you quote above, where Ian Lance Taylor was
actually shown the code, suggests that code has been copied. Even Ian
admits he is concerned about what he saw even if he thinks it's not
significant enough to matter.
More information about the Ukfreebsd