First Analyst Impressed By SCO's 'Proof'

[Jeremy C. Reed]

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, G.D.Thurman wrote:

> It appears as though this reviewer partially relied on
> comments rather than The Code.  SCO has access to Linux
> source code; what prevented them from placing the Linux
> comments into their source code?

Different vendors who have the Unix source can check their versions too.
This makes me thing that timestamps of backup archives will need to be
checked. (I wonder if they'd forge that.)

On Fri, 6 Jun 2003, Jeffrey Pyne wrote:

> Assuming SCO is able to show that there is indeed UNIX code present in
> Linux, I'm curious to see how they will prove that it was IBM was the
> culprit, versus Novell or Microsoft or one of the other licencees.  Was the
> code that was copied ONLY licensed to IBM and no one else?

If it is the kernel, then the bitkeeper history for Linux may have it.

The developers responsible know who they get their code from.

   Jeremy C. Reed
   http://www.reedmedia.net/