Message-ID: <3EDB33F8.9060507@stesmi.com>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 13:24:40 +0200
From: Stefan Smietanowski <stesmi@stesmi.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0.1) Gecko/20021003
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: uaca@alumni.uv.es
CC: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: SCO's claims seem empty
References: <1054512915.1620.2.camel@localhost> <200306020119.h521Jbdv003050@eeyore.valparaiso.cl> <20030602111037.GA32253@pusa.informat.uv.es>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1320
Lines: 33

uaca@alumni.uv.es wrote:
> Hello everybody
> 
> 
> let me speculate what we will see when SCO shows their "assumed proofs"
> 
> they will show code of the kernel and they will claim that was previously on
> SCO's operating system (and was made by them without a GPL license), 
> 
> how to refute that?

Take the subsystem which they show code that "look! They stole it from
us!" and look at how it has developed over time, including this very
mailing list discussions. I mean. Noone pushed in any subsystem into
the kernel (except linus) and just let it sit there, most were
gradually merged, so should have historical baggage.

"Look here in 2.0, here we did like this and then during 2.1 it was
changed and in 2.2 it was rewritten to this gradually in these
kernels and in 2.3 we redid it slowly over all of these versions ..."

How can they refute it? The linux kernel and all the historical versions
are available on the net including at least some of the discussions
behind their incorporation. The other part would in part be discussed
over the IRC, I know.

// Stefan

-
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/