[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [linrad] flavors and colors of Linux. Is RedHat strange or charming?

Hello, All!

Bob is right, it was his note.  My usual faulty memory again... Actually, I suspect
it was my subconscious mind avoiding disagreeing with him by changing his identity. 
Bob is always on the mark, and so disagreeing with him gives me knots in my stomach
even though he is always gentlemanly.  Kind of like pointing out a math error to the
math teacher. ;)

Joe asked about whether or not SCO has given specifics of the 'stolen code'.  To my
knowledge the answer is mostly no, and I think it is for the exact reason Chris has
given.  Once they show their 'facts', it will be clear that the Emperor wears no
clothes.  There were some references to a very few specifics they gave outside of the
legal venue in one of the URL's below.  In one case the 'offending code was removed',
and in the others the validity of the 'stolen' label was challenged.  See:


They have claimed that there are 591 files in kernels 2.4 and 2.5 [I said 'line of
code' and that is incorrect] that contain what is in their words 'illicit' code, but
they have not shown the actual text in their suit or provided it to IBM during the
pre-trial interrogatories.  I believe IBM has specifically asked them to do that and
they have failed to do it, and that IBM has filed motions to force them to show their
hand.  I think that except for SCO and their lawyers, everybody pretty much thinks
that SCO is WAY off base with their whole case both in terms of the facts of the case
and in terms of the ethics of proceeding in the first place.  See also

http://www.groklaw.net/pdf/Doc-64.pdf , page 3

Here are some of ZD-Net's other URL's for news stories on this legal situation in
case anyone is interested.


To read some of the reaction of the community to SCO's latest subpoenas:


Have a great day, all, and 

Roger Rehr