Russell Hires wrote:
>-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>Hash: SHA1
>
>In my reading of the story, I get the idea that SCO isn't telling us who
>exactly stole the offending code. If the changelog is as detailed as Linus
>has said, SCO should sue the person(s) who put the offending code into the
>kernel. Additionally, they wouldn't need to have people sign an NDA, as they
>could point at the people who stole the code, and show how those people got
>the code in the first place.
>
>
I must be missing something about the whole story, because I still
can't make any sense out of their claims and actions. SCO claims that
their Unix code is in the Linux kernel, which was distributed by SCO
themselves under the GPL. Which means that *everyone* can look at the
source code whenever they want. But SCO wants a NDA signed to show
people this same code? Plus, since they distributed the code as GPL
themselves, how can they change the terms of the GPL after the fact?
I thought that the code SCO was referring to was for the multi-cpu
usage, but now they are wanting a "per cpu" license fee even for single
cpu systems? I have never heard of a version of any OS that doesn't
support at least *one* cpu. (Well, that point is still debatable with
Windows 98). ;-)
SCO needs, to quote Beavis and Butthead, "to just go away...or
something".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This list is provided as an unmoderated internet service by Networked
Knowledge Systems (NKS). Views and opinions expressed in messages
posted are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the
official policy or position of NKS or any of its employees.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 16:14:42 EDT