| |||||||||||
His word against oursHis word against oursPosted Aug 19, 2003 22:45 UTC (Tue) by kokopelli (guest, #11341)Parent article: SCO's proof bogus, Linux advocate says (InfoWorld) Could it be as simple as their crack legal team thinking that Linux lives in a CVS repository on Linus' personal machine, a source that is suggestive but hardly conclusive since a knowledgable person can manipulate the repository? Maybe I'm naive, but once SCO first made its claim I would have expected one of the first acts by any interested party was to grab a snapshot of kernel.org precisely to prove/disprove any "after-the-fact" manipulation of the source. This is easily done with Linux, but how is SCO prepared to show that it didn't deliberately copy chunks of Linux code into its source tree to "prove" infringement. (All of this refers to their argument up to a few days ago. The current claim that Linux copied millions of lines of SCO code simply can't pass the giggle test.)
(Log in to post comments)
|
|||||||||||