Am 31. Jul, 2003 schw=E4tzte Jeremy C. Reed so:
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2003, der.hans wrote:
>
> > They claim the current kernel on their site is not tainted with the
> > questionable code.
>
> Do you have any reference(s) for that?
http://mozillaquest.com/Linux03/ScoSource-21-AmndComplaint_Story01.html
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=3D03/07/29/0049210
> If that is the case, then simply do a diff against it and the official
> kernel.org version. Will someone check this?
That is an option.
> (When I was on the SCO conference call last week, I didn't hear anything
> about this good kernel available from them. I have heard about them
> selling their license to use the supposedly-tainted kernel.)
Yeah, except that's a binary-only license, which is not allowed by the GPL.
It is an example of how the *BSD license isn't as free as the GPL since it
doesn't protect your freedoms. If this had been software under the *BSD
license there would be no way to prevent the binary-only license gambit.
The real solution is still to pull it out of the kernel, but if it turns ou=
t
to be something the kernel needs to continue being functional...
ciao,
der.hans
--=20
# https://www.LuftHans.com/ http://www.AZOTO.org/
# Magic is science unexplained. - der.hans
(text/plain)