11 Sep
2003
11 Sep
'03
7:32 p.m.
On Wednesday, 10 September 2003 at 17:41:49 -0700, Andru Luvisi wrote:
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003, Norman Wilson wrote:
Agreed. That doesn't apply to either piece of code they've shown so
far. This is http://www.lemis.com/grog/SCO/code-comparison.html
again.
I don't see how any diffing we do will make
any difference
`in the battle against SCO.'
[snip]
Some ways that I can see it being a good thing to do:
If SCO holds up a piece of common code and the good guys have no
response, that is bad. If SCO holds up a piece of common code and the good
guys already
know that it actually came from BSD, and are prepared to
demonstrate such, that is good.
That's the second example :-) The question I've asked SCO is: how
could you have missed the Berkeley license agreement at the beginning
of this file? SCO have backed off claiming that this is System V
code, and claim it's just an example of their code comparison
techniques. But on slide 15 of their presentation
(http://www.vangennip.nl/perens/SCOsource_Briefing_II.2.pdf) they
clearly claim that it's System V code. This suggests that SCO have
recognized their error, though they haven't yet had the decency to
apologize to the BSD community.
Greg
--
Finger grog(a)lemis.com for PGP public key
See complete headers for address and phone numbers