| |||||||||||||
|
| |||||||||||||
On the allegedly copied commentsOn the allegedly copied commentsPosted Jun 9, 2003 14:47 UTC (Mon) by eru (subscriber, #2753)Parent article: Notes from the SCO conference call If there indeed are the same comments in the supposedly similar codes, they are a most interesting finding, and do not necessarily support SCO's allegations. It seems to me that they are evidence against intentional copying from SCO. Someone knowingly stealing code and trying to cover his tracks would probably change or eliminate all comments first, because they are the easiest to modify without taking any risk that the functionality of the code itself breaks. So whoever copied the code (in either direction, or from some third source) probably thought it was OK.
(Log in to post comments)
On the allegedly copied comments Posted Jun 9, 2003 16:30 UTC (Mon) by proski (subscriber, #104) [Link] We are rehashing the same thing over and over again. Check previous comments.What if the code in question is in JFS? Engineer A took the code from Unix to AIX while implementing JFS. Engineer B took the code from AIX to OS/2. Engineer C took the code from OS/2 to Linux without being aware that the code comes from Unix. Neither engineer was aware of any legal implications. Yet it won't help IBM in the lawsuit.
|
|
||||||||||||